The Trellis pitch deck is a concise, 8-slide presentation from January 2018 that identifies a significant gap in the legal research market. While incumbents like Westlaw and LexisNexis focus on appellate courts, Trellis targets local trial courts where 99% of cases are decided. The deck uses a powerful iceberg metaphor to illustrate that current tools only scratch the surface of legal data. With a team combining deep technical expertise from the gaming and OS sectors with a practicing litigator, Trellis proposes a dual revenue model involving subscriptions and per-report fees. Although the de…
Key takeaways
- The deck identifies that 99% of civil cases are decided or settled in local trial courts, yet existing tools focus on appellate courts (Slide 2).
- An iceberg graphic visualizes the market gap, placing incumbents above the water and Trellis as the solution for the massive volume of data below (Slide 3).
- The product gathers tentative rulings, allows searching by judge or county, and analyzes temperament and citation favorites (Slide 4).
- The expansion strategy focuses on California and New York first, which combined represent approximately 1/4 of the nation's attorneys (Slide 5).
- Market sizing estimates a $7+ billion legal research market within a $437 billion total legal services industry (Slide 6).
- The proposed revenue model includes a $50/month subscription and a $200 per-side judge report fee (Slide 7).
- The team slide highlights a CTO with experience at Apple and Sony, and a CEO who is a practicing attorney in three states (Slide 8).
- The deck notably omits any mention of current traction, user numbers, or a specific investment amount being sought.
Trellis Pitch Deck Analysis: The Local Court Data Play
The Trellis pitch deck, dated January 2018, is a masterclass in identifying a 'wedge' in a market dominated by massive, entrenched incumbents. With only eight slides, the founders manage to articulate a clear market failure, a technical solution, and a logical path to scale. While the deck lacks the financial rigor or traction data expected in later-stage rounds, it serves as a strong seed-stage narrative for a data-aggregation business.
Slide 1: Title Slide
The deck opens with a minimalist title slide featuring the Trellis logo and the date 'Jan 2018'. The logo includes a small pixelated detail on the 't', perhaps hinting at the data-driven nature of the product. There is no tagline or mission statement here, which is a missed opportunity to set the stage immediately, but the simplicity keeps the focus on the brand name.
Slide 2: The Problem
Slide 2 is the most text-heavy slide in the deck, but it is highly effective. It states a clear, undeniable fact: 'Lawyers need information about their judges.' It then contrasts the 1970s-era tools (Westlaw/LexisNexis) that focus on appellate courts with the reality that 99% of cases are decided in local trial courts. The inclusion of a screenshot showing a lawyer emailing a listserv asking for info on 'Judge Thompson' is a classic 'show, don't just tell' tactic to prove that the current process is manual and inefficient.
Slide 3: Why Local Courts?
This slide uses a powerful visual metaphor: the iceberg. Above the water, we see LexisNexis and Westlaw occupying the small tip representing appellate courts. Below the water is the massive bulk of local courts, labeled 'Trellis'. The right side of the slide lists the specific districts and counties in California, illustrating the sheer volume of data sources that Trellis intends to unify. This slide successfully communicates the scale of the opportunity without needing a single dollar sign.
Slide 4: The Solution
Trellis defines itself as a 'new breed of local legal research service.' The slide breaks the product down into three pillars: Gather (collecting tentative rulings), Search (by judge, county, or topic), and Analyze (showing judge temperament and likelihood of granting motions). The screenshots provided give a glimpse of the UI, showing a 'Judge Report' for The Honorable William D. Claster, which includes data visualizations on motion outcomes. This moves the product from a simple search engine to an analytics platform.
Slide 5: The Plan
The expansion strategy is logical and grounded in lawyer demographics. By targeting California and New York first, Trellis aims to capture the attention of 25% of the nation's attorneys. The slide uses simple map silhouettes to show the progression from local to nationwide. It answers the 'where do you start?' question with a data-backed rationale: 'biggest bang for the buck.'
Slide 6: The Market
Slide 6 provides the TAM (Total Addressable Market) figures. It cites $437 Billion in total legal services and $7+ Billion specifically in legal research. The slide uses bubble charts to compare California, California + New York, and the United States in terms of both lawyer count (1.3 million total) and cases filed (17 million total). The sources are meticulously footnoted at the bottom, which adds significant credibility to these large numbers.
Slide 7: Potential Revenue
Interestingly, the deck admits that the 'Revenue model is TBD.' However, it offers a hypothetical model: a $50/month subscription and a $200 per-side judge report. The slide projects these numbers across the previously established markets, estimating a $6.8B potential in the U.S. While 'TBD' can be a red flag for some investors, the specific numbers provided show that the founders have at least modeled the unit economics and understood the 'pass-through billing' nature of legal expenses.
Slide 8: Team and Contact
The final slide introduces the two founders. Drew Thaler is positioned as the technical powerhouse, with credits on the PS4, Mac OS X, and AAA games like The Last of Us . Nicole Clark is the domain expert, a practicing attorney licensed in three states. This 'Hacker and Hustler' (or in this case, 'Hacker and Lawyer') pairing is a classic startup trope that investors generally favor, as it covers both the 'can we build it?' and 'do we know what to build?' risks.
What Works in the Trellis Deck
The Iceberg Visual: Slide 3 is the standout. It instantly explains the competitive landscape and the untapped opportunity in a way that words cannot. · Domain Expertise: The team slide (Slide 8) makes a strong case for why these two people are the right ones to solve this specific problem. · Clear Wedge Strategy: By focusing on CA and NY first (Slide 5), the company shows it isn't trying to boil the ocean on day one, despite the large TAM. · Problem Validation: The listserv screenshot on Slide 2 is a visceral reminder of how primitive the current 'solution' is for lawyers.
What is Missing from the Trellis Deck
Traction: There is no mention of how many users are currently on the platform, how many rulings have been indexed, or any pilot programs with law firms. · The Ask: The deck does not state how much money they are looking to raise or what the milestones for that capital would be. · Competitive Analysis: While it mentions the 'Big Two' (Westlaw/Lexis), it doesn't address other legal tech startups that might be moving into the analytics space. · Unit Economics: Beyond the 'Potential Revenue' slide, there is no discussion of the cost of data acquisition or customer acquisition costs (CAC).
What Founders Should Copy
The 'Current State' Evidence: Using a real-world example of the 'bad way' people solve the problem today (like the listserv email) is much more effective than just saying 'the market is inefficient.' · Geographic Prioritization: If your product relies on local data or networks, explain exactly which markets you are hitting first and why they represent the highest density of your target users. · Footnoted Sources: If you are going to claim a multi-billion dollar TAM, cite your sources on the slide. It prevents the investor from questioning your basic math.
Frequently asked questions
- What is the primary problem Trellis is solving?
- Trellis addresses the lack of information available to lawyers regarding local trial court judges. According to Slide 2, legacy legal research tools were built in the 1970s and focus almost exclusively on courts of appeal. However, since 99% of cases are settled or decided at the local trial court level, lawyers are forced to rely on informal networks to understand a judge's temperament or ruling history.
- How does Trellis differentiate itself from Westlaw and LexisNexis?
- Trellis differentiates itself by focusing on the 'bottom of the iceberg'—local trial court data. Slide 3 shows that while incumbents dominate appellate research, they ignore the vast majority of legal activity happening in local districts. Trellis specifically collects 'tentative rulings' and aggregate data on judge behavior that these larger platforms do not prioritize.
- What is the geographic strategy for Trellis?
- The company employs a 'biggest bang for the buck' strategy. As shown on Slide 5, they plan to start in California, expand to New York, and then move nationwide. The logic is that CA and NY together house roughly 25% of all U.S. attorneys, providing a high-density starting point for a data-intensive product.
- What is the proposed business model?
- Slide 7 outlines a two-pronged revenue approach. First, a 'nominal' subscription fee of $50 per month per attorney. Second, a transactional fee of $200 for a specific 'judge report' at the start of a case. The deck notes that these reports are low-cost and support pass-through billing, making them easier for law firms to justify.
- Who are the founders of Trellis?
- The team consists of Drew Thaler and Nicole Clark. Thaler (CTO) has a background in high-scale engineering, including work on Mac OS X and the PS4. Clark (CEO) is a practicing attorney with experience at AM100 firms. This pairing suggests a balance of 'domain expertise' (knowing the lawyer's pain points) and 'technical capability' (handling massive datasets).
