Legora reviews

The diversity and culture the company projects externally doesn't match the internal reality. People fear losing their jobs to arbitrary management decisions and one-way feedback processes with no recourse. New employees sign and are asked to leave every few months. Teams are not consulted on if the new managers are working out — feedback only flows downward and probably dependent on how much time you spend sucking up. There's an underlying fakeness that colors most interactions. Serious issue with company's focus being almost entirely reactive — obsessing over competitors and market capture while product innovation lags behind the very competitors referenced every day. Long hours are framed as a sign of winning, but there are no winners when people don't enjoy working with their colleagues. The people who thrive long-term here tend to be those willing to tolerate or perpetuate the dysfunction themselves.

The culture is the central problem. In my experience there's a significant gap between what's said and what's true, both from leadership and during the hiring process. I'd encourage candidates to ask very pointed questions in interviews and weigh the answers carefully against what they observe later. Hours are a serious issue. The unofficial expectation skews toward 12-hour days, and it's not unusual to see people working through weekends. There's a noticeable habit of disparaging competitors, with a lot of internal energy spent talking about and against them rather than focusing on the core team and the actual product and service. In my experience that misdirected focus is a sign of insecurity rather than confidence, and it pulls attention away from the work that actually matters. Leadership comes across as immature and reactive rather than considered, and I felt decisions were made without much regard for their downstream impact, including in areas where the stakes for the company seemed real. Total compensation is an area to go in skeptical about. In my experience the various components, salary and equity included, didn't hold up to what people were led to expect, and the way equity options were handled in particular left some worse off than promised. From what I saw, the structure is weighted heavily toward founders and senior staff, and several early employees ended up at a real disadvantage, so be realistic about whether the options on offer are likely to be worth much for someone joining now. I'd push for clarity in writing on the full package: base, vesting schedule, strike price, and what happens to your equity if you leave or are let go. Pay also seemed inconsistent across comparable roles, so don't assume there's a coherent or equitable structure behind the numbers. The probation process is the part I'd most caution people about. There appears to be a pattern of letting people go before they reach the end of the standard six-month probation period, which makes joining feel like a gamble regardless of how you actually perform.