Sacked Apprentice lawyer wants you to fund her business

By on

Lauren Riley turns to crowd funding to boost her client-communications app


One of the lawyers Alan Sugar sacked from last season’s Apprentice television hit is bidding for crowd funding to boost her business brainchild in a pitch that competes directly with the Law Society.

Lauren Riley — who attributed her failure on the BBC programme last November to Sugar’s supposed hatred of lawyers — yesterday opened the door to the public in a bid to raise £150,000 for The Link App.

The family law specialist at St Albans solicitors’ firm Labrums has been developing the app for some time. She describes it as “ultimate tool for busy law firms looking to thrive in an increasingly competitive market, improve customer service, save time and money and increase productivity”.

Essentially, her business model involves law firms licensing the app and supplying it to their clients. According to Riley, the tool keeps “clients in the loop without the need for back and forth communication, freeing up valuable solicitor’s time”.

In announcing the Crowd2Fund cash call yesterday, Riley estimated that the app could increase law firm profits by a staggering £84,000 annually per fee earner through its enhanced communications and time saving functions.

Funds raised will be used for further development and marketing, and the deal will offer investors a share of equity.

The app’s developers maintained that it is suited to various categories of legal work; however, in the past, Riley has said The Link App is especially well suited to client communications in residential conveyancing matters.

That will put Riley in direct competition with her own professional body, the Law Society, which in the last few days has launched its own all-singing, all-dancing on-line conveyancing tool called Veyo.

But plucky Riley relishes the David-and-Goliath fight, telling Legal Cheek that she does not actually view the Chancery Lane system as a rival.

“It [Veyo] isn’t an app based technology and The Link App answers that demand of our clients. Conveyancing is a sector which The Link App particularly benefits, but we cater to all private client sectors.”


Exclusive interview: sacked BBC Apprentice solicitor on her journey from self-funded LPC student to solicitor-entrepreneur [Legal Cheek]


Paul Summerfield

Just one question. Why?



Sir Alan Sugar did not want to invest in her “business” idea. This is not a good investment. Lauren Riley is everywhere trying to promote herself not this App.



Lord Sugar now.


Denning' bloated ballsack

I’d still sink her with my pink torpedo.



she really fancies herself doesn’t she?



Yes. You can not take her seriously when she is posting half naked pictures of herself.



£84k per fee earner!!!!!!

Let the buyer beware those offering such high returns.



I once read a genuine cure for baldness wouldn’t require a penny spent on advertising the product due to the media and online exposure.

It appears she is championing her own cause.



Agreed. It is for her empty bank balance.


Not Amused

I’m not sure I understand (which may very well be my own fault I grant you). But I think the idea is this:

– Lawyers spend 3 hours a day communicating with clients
– By using the App you cut that to 2 hours a day
– Lawyers average hourly rate is £175/hour (no idea where this comes from, if anything seems low unless the one lawyer in the outer hebredies with a £20/hour rate is pulling everyone else down)
– So that is a saving of £175 per day per solicitor or £84k a year

The problem I have is that lawyers bill that £175 to the client. So … to me it looks like a loss of £84k per fee earner unless you generate extra work for your fee earners to do in the “saved” time. Vut if everyone uses the App then that would mean (assuming the 1 hour a day saved is out of a total 4 billed a day) that 25% of solicitors would become unnecessary.

So is her model not in fact something that should be sold to law firm clients and not law firms? It seems to me she has the wrong target market.

Even then that’s assuming that we want to live in a world of 25% redundancies in res conveyancing or that those redundancies would help anyone. Because the 75% of lawyers who stayed would demand higher salaries, quite possibly a 25% increase, possibly more, so the £175/hour rate would have to be raised in order to pay those salaries. At which point the 25% saving to the clients disappear.

So we would have fewer lawyers, costing more. After that someone would have to pay the profits of her company. So that too would be passed on to consumers.

I think this is sort of like judicial intervention in litigation: it has exactly the opposite impact to what was intended.



Good points, but given that a lot of resi conveyancing is fixed fee it is in the law firm’s interest to keep the fees down.


Not Amused

I see, that makes more sense.



Dat butt tho…mmmm-mm! Her IG feed is faptastic… *unzips pants*




Ding dong.

I so wooooood. Until it fell off.


Dr E. Rection Esq.

Whoooah, I’m cummmming!!!



Please crowdfund my new App- “The Pink” – Viagra $20, anytime anywhere… don’t all come at once.


Dr E. Rection Esq.

“May I sink The Pink my dear?”



$20 please…


Sir Richard Richard

I’ll install her app, if you know what I mean.



There are already examples of this in conveyancing, such as VirtualFirm. The ‘app’ is only as good as the information that is fed into it, so it requires the motivation of the solicitor to use it. And, of course, if it appears nothing is happening, the client will still be on the phone asking what it going on.


Comments are closed.