‍

In this episode of ‪What Worked, Tyler interviews Rich Lee, Founder & CEO at New Era ADR, a digital dispute resolution platform. Rich discusses how his experience as general counsel for multiple startups has prepared him to be a founder.

Rich shares his insights about:

• The differences in contract negotiation tactics for a new lawyer versus an experienced business operator.
• The importance of staying true to a startup's main business while remaining ready to adapt to changes.
• How shortening the dispute resolution process can save business relationships.

We'd love for you to connect with us:

• Mike Wu
• Tyler Rachal
• Rich Lee

‍

Transcript edited for clarity:

Tyler Rachal

Hello, hello, and welcome back to another episode of What Worked. I'm joined today by Rich Lee, Founder of New Era ADR. By the way, Rich, it's funny when I say your business name, our most popular role that we staff is actually account development representative, which is kind of like an SDR. So it's just funny, every time I say ADR, I can't help but smile. I’m just thinking about that role that we staff. But yours is involving something very different. Ours is more of a business development function. Yours is involving dispute resolution. 

‍

Rich Lee

Yep.

‍

Tyler Rachal

So different worlds. But I'm very excited to welcome Rich to the pod and jump into it. If you're, if you're into talking all things contracts, this is going to be a good one to listen to, which I definitely am. So Rich as is customary here on What Worked, I always like to have the guests introduce themselves, because I'll definitely do a poor man's version. So if you don't mind telling our audience who you are, what you do, who you do it for, and all that good stuff.

‍

Rich Lee

Yeah. Thanks for having me, Tyler. It's great to be here. I would say less so about all things contracts and more so if you're interested in or ever dealt with all things legal disputes and legal fights, right? 

‍

Tyler Rachal

Yeah, the after the contracts.

‍

Rich Lee

Yeah, this is why we exist. Background on myself, lawyer in a former life, engineer by background. I was a lawyer in a law firm, had an unconventional legal career, left the firm after a year, went into basically IP investment banking. So I was brokering a lot of technology transactions also leading market development in Asia. Did that for about three or four years, but really kind of where my interests lie is being close to the tech, building something from nothing. So joined two different tech companies. One was an early stage fintech company, 12 person shop at the time. We built and scaled that over three and a half years and sold it. And then my previous company was a data science and analytics company, basically AI before what it is today. Joined them early as well. They were about a 30 person shop at the time. We built and scaled that over six and a half years, raised several rounds of capital. In both companies, my role was general counsel, but then the beauty of working early stage is that you actually work across the business, go to market, product, you name it.

‍

Tyler Rachal

Without a doubt, yes.

‍

Rich Lee

And that was the fun of it. And at my previous company where basically it was AI before what it is today, that's where I met my co-founders. And for us what we do today at New Era, of course my role CEO and co-founder, but I started New Era with three other co-founders. Three out of the four of us are ex-lawyers and really wanted to build something to kind of solve something that we all dealt with in our old world, but it's not something that just lawyers feel. It's actually something that all business operators and all businesses experience, right? Which is why the hell do legal disputes take so damn long and why do they cost so damn much? And more importantly, when you hear the word lawsuit, why do we just automatically assume that it's a two and a half year long process and like hundreds of thousands and millions in fees, right? That's just the default that we just all assume.

‍

And you think about that, that drives all decision making. And so if you've ever been a business operator and you've dealt with an employment suit, or a suit by one of your customers, or you wanted to bring a suit against a customer who wasn't paying or whatever, that thought goes through your mind. Let's use that employment lawsuit, for example. Your company gets hit with one. And what do we do a lot of times? We just settle it, even if we didn't do anything wrong. Right. And you think about that, the reason we built this is because it's that core dilemma, which is you settled a case and yet you felt like we didn't do anything wrong. Yet to demonstrate that you didn't do anything wrong, it would take you years and a lot of money. And so therefore you're paying that settlement not to, you know, not because you did anything wrong, but literally just to avoid the time and the expense to demonstrate that. And vice versa. A customer's not paying you and you want to go after them because you should be paid what you're owed and what you've earned. And yet a lot of times many companies won't go after that. Because again, the time, the costs and the expense of going after that amount far outweighs the amount you would have collected, but that's backwards. 

‍

And so for us, our rationale was, especially all having been lawyers for, I mean, I've been a lawyer for 17 years, one of my colleagues for over 20 and another one of my colleagues for, you know, right around 15. And the premise being we've seen it and we know, and frankly, I think even non-lawyers, any business operator knows that like most legal disputes don't need the two plus years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. And yet that's kind of all that's available, because of the systems that exist. So the court system, legacy arbitration systems that also take just as long. And so our premise was, why is it that the same system that was being used for like two companies to fight over who owns self-driving car technology or for Apple to fight over whether they're infringing on a patent that governs their watches, why is it that that same system that those companies use are the same ones that we have to use when it's just a straightforward employment claim or a customer dispute or a vendor dispute or, you know, the 99%. And so for us, the why behind New Era was frankly, you know what? 99% of legal disputes and legal disagreements don't need that. And yet nothing exists to quickly and fairly adjudicate these. 

‍

And so that's what New Era is, we are one hundred day arbitrations. We also do mediations. So that means a resolution inside of a hundred days, all for one flat fee. That's also unheard of in any legal dispute, having cost certainty, much less time certainty, all taking place on our platform, which facilitates the entire thing. But then even though it's 90% faster and cheaper, same quality people here in your case. And so the arbitrators, the retired lawyers, the retired judges who are currently doing this on other platforms, they're joining ours too, because they really like how we kind of pursue and adjudicate these disputes. And so that's what we are, and very industry agnostic, we have clients ranging from banking to finance to staffing companies to sports, you name it.

‍

Tyler Rachal

Can I ask some follow up questions? Cause you've definitely piqued my interest. It's as if you were a fly on the wall in a conversation I was literally having yesterday. I grabbed coffee with another staffing agency owner. And we were bemoaning exactly what you referenced when customers don't pay and our experience when we've gone to lawyers. Should we pursue this? Should we not? And basically them saying, Hey, if it's not at X threshold, it's really not worth it. 

‍

Functionally or to get a little bit here into the weeds for your platform. How does it work in terms of, do you need the other party to agree to use this platform? For example, all of our contracts or our terms and conditions reference going to arbitration and the geographic location of arbitration and agreeing on an arbitrator and that sort of stuff, standard sort of legal language. How does that work? Do you need the other company, in other words, to agree to use your platform? How does that work?

‍

Rich Lee

Yeah. The short answer is yes, because arbitration and mediation - and real quick arbitration and mediation, the difference is simply arbitration is kind of more analogous to what you see in court. There's a winner and a loser, both sides putting on their case. The arbitrator acts as the judge. At the end of the arbitration, they say you win, you lose. Mediation is a little different. It's a little squishier,in the sense that the mediator's job isn't to call a winner and a loser. It's actually to help talk to both sides and help them come to an agreement. And so we do both. But both of them definitely need both sides to agree. The thing is the beauty of it is in arbitration, the way you'd get that done, for the most part is through contracts, right? So you are actually already nailed it. So in your contracts, in your terms and conditions, in any contract we've ever signed, there's always a clause that says, if we have a dispute under this agreement, we will resolve it in the courts in Chicago or…

‍

Tyler Rachal

Delaware, whatever.

‍

Rich Lee

Yep, or this arbitration platform or whatever, people will cross out the words courts or the arbitration platform and put in New Era ADR. And just by virtue of doing that, that's a binding legal obligation in the future for any dispute to come to New Era. And because all of this is governed under federal law, the Federal Arbitration Act, courts recognize that. And so that's how you get the mutual agreement. But that little simple change is the difference between potentially 12, 18, 36 months versus 100 days.

‍

Tyler Rachal

You, of course, struck a chord. We're a small business. So you say hundreds of thousands in legal fees or millions, it would essentially kill us. So I totally get that. Another follow-up there is in terms of the business. You mentioned these arbitrators and different folks that would be involved in these disputes are coming to the platform. Is kind of the play here that you are offering some flexibility in terms of now someone who is based in California can sort of sit on one of these, they now have another kind of, it's almost like deal flow or opportunity flow, in other words. Is that kind of part of it?

‍

Rich Lee

Yep. A hundred percent. And we've actually called that deal flow. And it's just kind of adding to their pipeline. We don't ask for exclusivity, so they can continue to work and take cases from other arbitration platforms, but then we are basically another source. So it's a little bit like, a higher end version, but Uber drivers who also have the Lyft app and they have both turned on.

‍

Tyler Rachal

Yeah, and you're dealing with the, I'm trying to remember what they call it. The first thing was sort of the gig gig economy, right? Which was the Uber's and the Task Rabbits and whatever it is. And then we got into the I think it's like the talent and the intelligence economy. And that's the thing is with your platform, it's pretty cool. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like if I was using your platform, I probably want someone who has direct experience with staffing disputes, right? Where they understand a little bit about the nature of the relationship between the staffing company and the customer and all the laws that fall under that. So very cool. 

‍

Rich Lee

Yeah, for sure.

‍

Tyler Rachal

Okay, awesome. No, that makes a ton of sense. Also one other question here to kind of go back. You mentioned joining those companies very early. I think you said there was 12 employees when you joined one company and there was 30 with the other one and you mentioned wearing many hats. Would you agree with this: I have found that in my experience, I think a general counsel in those companies, oftentimes functions as almost the COO. I don't know if you feel like that's appropriate. Did you find that your responsibilities were similar to that of a COO?

‍

Rich Lee

A lot of them were, yeah. Fortunately in both, I had colleagues and counterparts who we could riff off of, right? And help with the operations, but absolutely.

‍

Tyler Rachal

Very cool. And then a founder to founder question: As you've now ventured out to start your own thing, I mean you joined a company at 12 and at 30, did that give you some confidence confidence to go out and do your own thing?

‍

Rich Lee

For sure. Just the confidence knowing that not only have you seen what works, but more importantly, what doesn't. So then knowing that then as a co-founder of a company, you can actually set that path now, learn from what didn't work, take what worked but adapt it to your version of the business. Cause there's never just a cookie cutter recipe across different types of businesses, but absolutely.

‍

Having been there early on, and then seeing two companies grow and played a key role in both of them, definitely adds a lot of confidence to be able to say, okay, well, we did 12 to company of 12 and a company of 30. Why not a company of zero? Right. And, let's start from there. 

‍

Tyler Rachal

Sure. Keep going lower. You referenced what didn't work. I don't want you to violate any NDAs or say anything you don't want to, but I'd love to hear an example of something that you observed or you experienced or even a decision that you made that didn't work for those companies.

‍

Rich Lee

I think this is common right across a lot of different organizations is not knowing who you are and not kind of owning it and picking a path, knowing that you might need to deviate and quickly iterate. But a lot of times, you're kind of a little bit of a, it's not so much spraying and praying, but it's a little bit of an identity crisis in some organizations where

‍

I also work with a lot of, you know, early stage startups, whether it's as an advisor or as an investor. And so I've seen it not just in companies I've been at, but also companies I've worked with. The best example, I've seen this multiple times where, um, you know, an organization can be part services and part product. And they want to turn into a product company, but then the services kind of bring in either the revenue early on or more interesting projects. And so you're kind of hanging onto that while then the other part kind of starts to be negatively affected because you're not focused on the product mission. So things like that, right? Where it's like, just own who you are, know what you are going in, of course be ready to iterate and adjust. And then if there is a path to an end state of what you want to be, just still own what you are early on. And then find that path and follow that path to like what that end goal is of what you want to be. But don't try and do both and don't try and be something you're not early on. I think in both situations customers, investors, they kind of see through that.

‍

Tyler Rachal

That resonates a lot. Hireframe works with, as we were discussing before the podcast started, about 70% of our customers are B2B technology companies. And so they're building whatever you want to call it, a platform, an API, a SaaS, whatever it might be. And what we definitely have seen is that friction that is caused when you have your kind of professional services arm of the organization. Sometimes companies I've noticed technology companies are using it for different things. Sometimes they use it as retention. It's like if we can provide this professional services arm, it can actually help the customers to use the platform correctly and therefore will lower churn. In other cases, it's also sometimes a revenue generator, a profit generator. And then to your point, it's also sometimes been almost like an experiment, you know, kind of like a lab, if you will.

‍

For all those things, I find that there's just this natural tension that arises between that and the product builders. Just because to be a great service organization, you need all people to be rowing in the same direction. There's a lot of support to be successful in services. Services can be a wonderful business. I'm in a service business. It can be a wonderful business in the sense of you can get to profitability very quickly and with minimal investment. It can be really hard. It can go the other way fast. And so, yeah, I totally get that. And I've seen that tension play out with some of our customers. Everybody wants that tech multiple. So it's the services cashflow versus the tech multiple. 

‍

So you mentioned this experience you've had, you've done close to it all. You've been an attorney, you've been in house general counsel. I oversee because I'm overseeing sales at Hireframe and account management, I'm de facto overseeing all contracts, right? And so something that I could talk a lot about is that process of getting through red lines, getting to signatures. And I've, and I've experienced all different types of partners. Sometimes I'm dealing directly with the founder and we're able to sort of get through it really quickly. In other instances, I'm dealing with some Silicon Valley, I'm sure very expensive, very good firm that sometimes it feels like they're just kind of dragging it out. I'm curious what your perspective is on sort of finalizing terms when you're a vendor working with a customer or whatever, two companies working together. How do you approach those, those sort of instances? And how does that differ from maybe when you first started?

‍

Rich Lee

I learned quickly. So early on definitely, especially having that lawyer training, right. And I think, especially lawyers, we’re trained in law school to identify kind of everything that could possibly go wrong in a situation. And I think then a lot of attorneys, unfortunately, don't kind of then take the next step, which is then identifying, well, of all these things, prioritizing and saying, well, these are the things that really matter. And the rest of this stuff, sure, they could be risks, but in the grand scheme of things, in terms of getting the deal done, the relationship at hand, all of those things, we probably don't need a nitpick over these, right? And so early on definitely, I was a little bit of that ilk where you're trying to nitpick every single little thing in a contract, trying to get your terms and things that you believe should be in there, in there.

‍

But really quickly you realize, especially in early stage companies where speed is king and you have to close deals. You have to get revenue. You quickly realize both through that being forced to learn this as well as just seeing things play out practically. At the end of the day, especially when contracting and any deal making, right? There's a few very important things that are worth fighting over. And not really fighting, but really discussing collaboratively. And then a lot of the other stuff is, you know, what can you just live with it? Because the likelihood of something going wrong for that, not big. And if something did go wrong, also probably not a very big thing, right. Versus, my previous company, we handled a lot of companies data. Well, certainly then data protection, data security issues, and the liabilities that come from that, something we need to negotiate. But everything else around payment terms, termination rights, and all the little things in there, a lot of that stuff you just kind of learn to deal with. 

‍

And so you see that over time and you see that in more experienced business operators, because I've definitely come across some business side folks too, who take pride in reading every word in the contract and then they kind of take the approach like, all right, I'm gonna nail every word. So you see that and of course there are lawyers who do that too. The more experienced folks you can tell end up just kind of quickly realizing okay, here are the things that matter. Here are the other things that don't. So, that's my approach is really hone in on those things, but more importantly, actually starting off at a pre-neutral, mutually beneficial starting point, right? I'm sure, especially you, like us founders, early stage companies, we've probably been handed contracts by bigger companies and just saying like, take it or leave it. 

‍

Tyler Rachal

Yes, Walmart.

‍

Rich Lee

Yeah. In some of these, you see like everything is heavily one-sided, even stuff that frankly doesn't need to be. And to me that's more of a practical thing, which is this is the start of a relationship. And if this is how you kind of introduce and the dynamics you start off with, not great. And so even in my previous company, all of our contracts, we amended everything, just make everything kind of more mutual. And then certainly the important things in our forms, we had to make a little more one-sided because there were important factors in play. And then when we did negotiate, we were pretty transparent. Because I think that the thing that people never want to hear is like, it's because this is how we've always done it.

‍

Tyler Rachal

Oh and I'll do you one worse. This is the worst one I ever got. It was a small, small company. This was a tiny company, maybe five people. And they just told me, they said, we've got a parent company in Canada and these are their terms. And I said, well, can I talk to somebody up there who would be willing to chat with me about here's why these terms are in direct conflict with my business, basically. And they said, Nope, you can't talk to them, they won't change. It is what it is, like you said, take it or leave it. 

‍

I am a salesperson at heart. I can still remember when I was a quota carrying salesperson. It takes a lot for me to leave a deal. It takes a ton. And that was an easy decision where I was like, this is gonna be bad. Something that you mentioned really struck a chord and I just referenced it. You mentioned making things more mutually beneficial. When I enter into discussions with a company, I try to sort of set the tone, set the expectation. I say, listen, I have tried to be very thoughtful about our terms and I've tried to think about what is really going to make for a great relationship, a great partnership. So we're starting off in a good place. The number one thing for me where I typically see things go wrong is like what I just referenced. When someone is willing to sort of, in my opinion, undermine the core principles of your business, because it's important for them to get one of these wins. Or it's like for them, a good deal is one that's very one sided, to which I always explain if entering into this partnership is going to mean risking my entire business, then the decision is very easy for me. I can't do it. And that's not me trying to play hardball. That's me just being very honest as someone who is an operator of this company, a fiduciary of this company, it's my responsibility to not put us into harm's way. And I'd be putting us directly into harm's way. 

‍

So that's a piece that I just don't quite understand when companies get so hung up on terms that they lose sight of me trying to explain. I'm like, we're a staffing business. You have changed the terms to a point where basically it makes my business, not a business. I'm just providing you with someone that you can just take at any point. It's kind of odd. Anyway, I can ramble about this. 

‍

Rich Lee

I've seen that, yeah.

‍

Tyler Rachal

Yeah. Speaking of sales, I do have to ask you, you made reference to this before the recording, you talked about selling one of your biggest deals and it sounds like you pulled off a reverse sell. You sold a salesperson that was trying to sell you, I love a good sales story. So please indulge me.

‍

Rich Lee

And a lot of credit to that sales guy. We’re in touch to this day. But yeah, it was a very large company, like one of the biggest. And it was a sales guy, we were talking and essentially it was a pretty straightforward conversation where I'm like, well, I'm not in a position yet, there's some things that are actually holding me back from being able to do anything with you. But I appreciate this, certainly aware of what you have to offer. And it wasn't even just kind of making stuff up to say anything. I legitimately felt that way, but I'm like, I just need a little time. But in the meantime, if you could help me because my company's so industry agnostic and I told them exactly what we did, applied it to different parts of their business. And again, I think that's also what's really cool about New Era is that you don't need to be a lawyer. Everybody knows legal disputes suck. Nobody wants to be stuck in the middle of a legal dispute. Nobody wants to be paying money for a legal dispute.

‍

Tyler Rachal

And if you've ever sold any sort of enterprise deal of any size, I became familiar with contracts because I was a salesperson and I had to be familiar with them. And so I became very familiar with the legal dispute section. And for the company that I was at previously, I knew where the lines were. They would say, yeah, we're okay to move it from Los Angeles to Delaware. We're not okay to remove mediation, arbitration, whatever it was. And so you kind of get familiar with some of these terms.

‍

Rich Lee

Yeah. And so he picked up on it right away and actually, you can tell when people really get it. Cause then he had this visceral reaction because he's seen it. He's seen legal disputes, anybody who's ever dealt with it, there's almost like this anger thinking about what you had to do to avoid a legal dispute. And so for him, I was like, if you could just find somebody in your legal department, in your giant sprawling legal department, I can talk to that'd be amazing.

‍

So we found one person, not a bad conversation, but also clearly not the right person. I went back to him and didn't think he would keep going. I was like, well, it wasn't the right person. What do you think? Do you think you could find another? He did. Long story short, he found three or four, maybe five people cause he believed in what we did so much at New Era, he. went and found a fifth person in their legal department who like light bulb. And the guy's like, we need to do this because in this portion of the business right now, we need this ASAP. And this could have an immediate impact, not just on cost and time and resources, but actually what was really cool was on customer experience, their individual customers. And then of course, as you can imagine, you've sold some of these big companies, long, long, long sales cycle, just going through vendor assessment and everything. But then everything is done, the company is so far happy. And it all started with the sales guy and it was great. And we've kind of seen each other kept in touch. In fact, I’m meeting up with him tomorrow. So it's become a great relationship.

‍

Tyler Rachal

And I imagine you can't say his name, but we love to give shout outs here at Hireframe. So shout out to you sales guy, you know who you are, you're the man. Rich is gonna see you tomorrow, I'm sure buy you a coffee or whatever. That's such a cool story. I do want to say kind of here in in in wrapping things up as again is customary for What Worked guests. I love to ask our guests to shoot a quick, I've been calling it infomercial, but I think promo is a little bit better. So a quick promo for your business. If you were to talk directly to a potential customer with that pain point that really matches New Era ADR’s platform, what you guys are solving, talk to them. What would you say? Hey, so and so, are you struggling with XYZ? We've got the solution.

‍

Rich Lee

I would say if you're any business operator or lawyer who's dealt with those situations I mentioned earlier, right? Where either you're reluctantly paying a legal settlement, even when you had strong arguments and you didn't do something wrong and you're paying money just to avoid a legal dispute because you're trying to avoid the time and costs. Or if you've walked away from bringing a case, like for example against a non-paying customer because the time and money of going after that customer just isn't worth it, reach out. A lot of people have actually now said to us, this is the only place where you can go and have a fight in a hundred days in a legal dispute and maintain that relationship. And I think that's really, really important, right? Because the existing systems, when you're in a fight with someone for a year plus, no matter what, there's just going to be acrimony and relationships are going to sour. But when you get in, you've had the catharsis of presenting your case and somebody makes a call in a hundred days, there is much less of an opportunity for both sides to actually truly hate each other. So win or lose, you've had the catharsis, you maintain your relationship, but you get the amounts that you're owed or you can actually put on that defense if somebody's accusing you of something.

‍

So just reach out because here's the thing, we have a lot of lawyers on the team as part of the founding team. So a lot of times, a lot of our conversations are actually just kind of like brainstorming with organizations about where we make the most impact, which is most of their organization and most of your organization, if I'm talking to the person, cause very rarely are companies dealing with that bet the company who owns self-driving car technology litigation. It's everything else. And we're here for all of it.

‍

Tyler Rachal

That's really cool. Gosh, as you were saying that I was just, I was just sort of imagining some of those disputes and how unnecessary they are. And I love your reference. That needs to be a metric is reducing the time you'll have to hate somebody. So it's like when it's years, it's just so much time to build up hatred. When it's a hundred days, you just have less time and then it's over. So very cool. 

‍

Awesome. Well, Rich, thank you so much for being on What Worked. It's been an absolute pleasure chatting with you. I'm very excited for what you're doing. It makes sense to me. Consider me one of those sales guys who gets it. I will ask you as is also customary, where do you like to have people find you? What channels are you actually active on? And you've mentioned, you've got your company. Of course, I'm sure if someone's interested in working with you guys, you'd love to hear from them. But also, you're an investor and also you have a ton of experience, I'm sure you advise people as well. What do you like people to reach out to you about?

‍

Rich Lee

Yeah, certainly about New Era, as you said. Reach out to me on LinkedIn or email me directly. It's rich dot lee at neweraadr.com. Of course, look for us on our website. But beyond that, I'm always looking for, you know, interesting deals, interesting companies, whether it's invested in or work with. I mean, that's what drives me. It's fun working with other fellow founders, either helping them just kind of iterate on their projects and their companies or just frankly sometimes just commiserating. Having those founder relationships and that founders network is always really important.

‍

Tyler Rachal

Very cool. Well, you heard it here first. You can reach out to Rich on, sounds like on LinkedIn or his email directly. We have a lot of salespeople that listen to What Worked that are kind of either sales execs or quota carrying salespeople. This conversation should be near and dear to your heart because you're having to go through typically contract red lines. And something that could be great is to bring New Era to your head of legal and potentially slot that in. When I was a salesperson, I would regularly send my head of legal various gifts from Amazon, like a pizza stone or like whatever it was, whenever we closed deals. Believe me, it made a difference. Anytime I needed, you know, contract red lines, they magically got bumped to the front of the line. So I'll say this will be another thing that you can send your head of legal that will make them smile and it'll be good for you because it'll help you close more deals. So there you go. There's my pitch for you guys.

‍

Rich Lee

I appreciate that for sure. And when you're talking to your head of legal, a lot of times legal likes to know who else is doing it. So just let them know that we have some of the biggest banks in the country, some of the biggest entertainment companies in the country, major automakers, major retailers, all the way to sports teams like the Chicago Cubs, the U S Olympic committee. We're actually team USA’s arbitration provider. So all American athletes actually have their disputes go through us. And so it's a wide range. And so legal typically likes to know other people have vetted it and are using it. And so let them know that those organizations, plus all of their lawyers at their respective law firms have vetted us pretty heavily and then given a big thumbs up.

‍

Tyler Rachal

Yeah, makes total sense. Without a doubt, legal and finance, they need to see the social proof. So totally get that. Well, Rich, thank you so much for being on What Worked. We have thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. Again, this is a call to action for our audience, for Rich, you as well. If you do know anybody that you think would be a good guest on What Worked, and if you've had a good experience, would greatly appreciate any referrals. We love to hear from very interesting people like yourself. And yeah, we'll catch you guys on the next one.

‍

Rich Lee

Thanks so much, Tyler.

‍

Tyler Rachal

Thank you.

‍