At the end of 2018, the Legal Legion (loyalty) NPO was established. It was the natural continuation of lawfreaks dot, a student community with the sole purpose of conveying the message to our fellow students that political depend voices are not needed in universities. The warm reception (given the size of the relevant population of the Law School) swept us away as our studies came to an end. Passing the group’s leadership to younger students was not a desirable scenario, so we were carried away and promised each other that we would do the same in the next phase of our professional careers. And so, the Legal Legion (loyalty) was founded.
Our contributed assets may be insufficient, but it was very specific and defined: our initial audience & followers, the internally familiar team, and primarily the easy access to technologies as well as networks. We knew that we didn’t have defined goals and/or projects, but we self-warned several times and chose to overlook it, believing that by keeping an eye on professional developments and staying alert, goals would be derived. Indeed, our first campaign was when a new banking service was launched in our country. It followed the trends of the time, and the application “extracted” contacts from customers’ mobile phones and sent promotional messages. An ad hoc team was assigned, and a complaint was drafted. The beginning was more or less like this, even though there was an attempt to compile handbook notes for the bar association exams, or the focus sharpened when an interesting issue arose from the legal clinic.
In reality, the lack of specificity in our goals had not been resolved, and as it will become evident by the end, it was never resolved. This was not just an efficiency problem (since there were no uniform or long-term projects), but also we lacked strong messages to communicate, neither were we particularly skilled at anything. In fact, we had never been organized and simply executed various sporadic projects. However, this was also an internal communication problem. I distinctly remember two projects. The idea was raised to organize a blood donation campaign, but then there was also an attempt at publish a handbook for professional interest (something like cheatsheets for the various stamps in legal documents).
The first idea had bothered me (the one with the blood donation). I don’t even remember the circumstances and how it was discussed, but my argument and resentment were that other friends and colleagues didn’t grasp the difference between a charity and a non-profit organization. As for the cheatsheets, it was a project that started when I spotted a member who coincidentally showed me his personal notes. Immediately, I promised to take care of both print and digital formatting, and I asked him to allow me to publish it. In fact, my enthusiasm was such that I promptly assured him that beyond a logo and 22 cents per sale, all other rights would belong to her. In the following days, both of us worked together and improved the content. In about three weeks, the project spread to the rest of the directors’ board, and in a few days, the member was convinced to abandon the project. I, in turn, conceded with the supposed compromise that it would be an internal edition for our members.
In conjunction with the cancellation of the members’ assembly, it markedthe beginning of the end of my active participate as an director of the 3L. With the exception of the fully-orchestrated launch of a Saas Whistleblowing Platform, I abstained from active involvement in any discussions, initiatives, or assemblies. An another exception was my presence at an informal gathering regarding the prolonged inertia of the 3L, where the launch of a pro-bono service package for selected NPOs was decided upon, in exchange for the visibility of the 3L. Meanwhile, during that period, any of my white papers or essays were self-published, and I undertook voluntary roles in other NPOs. Ultimately, in the Q3 of 2023, the dissolution of the foundation was resolved.
I do not dispute that the 3L offered me much in terms of experience as I collaborated with intriguing teams and projects. Moreover, having personally navigated through many bureaucratic intricacies of an NPO, I found myself capable of executing similar tasks much more expeditiously as an employee or attorney. Yet, it also afforded me the insight to discern numerous pitfalls inherent in non-profit endeavors.
Overemphasis on hunting sponsorships
Considerable human resources were expended in pursuit of augmenting donations without first securing a comprehensive plan and method of administration. We amassed subsidized programs and leveraged our connections. The potential compensations of the involved parties, and so forth, were scrutinized.
This mirrors what often transpires in commercial enterprises. Revenues materialize after defining assets, presenting business lines, and deriving income from these entrepreneurial activities. In essence, no business first collects incomes, then decides on its business activities, and finally founders determine how much money to allocate.
In this manner, we squandered the patience and interest of many individuals we knew or initially showed some interest, operating under the assumption that one client or donor would suffice. Even when we engaged in juicy and successful discussions, or sealed certain agreements, our appetite remained insatiable, as we inherently required another 5 or 10 such agreements. Thus, we perpetuated the struggle to attract more donators. However, this diverted us from the imperative need for effective management, the formulation of a robust plan, and, most importantly, compelling products and services. Consequently, the subsequent donators could not organically emerge.
Leadership
The leadership of 3L constituted the personal endeavor of two or three individuals, in reality, even fewer, as I swiftly began to entertain second thoughts and ultimately relinquished my efforts. Here arise two issues: What does a robust director board entail, and to what extent did it constitute a recurrence of the founder syndrome?
I have engaged in personal debates with many of my professors regarding whether the Agent Theory is an outdated concept and must be entirely and unequivocally replaced by the Stakeholder Theory. The Agent Theory is an entirely valid, contemporary, and relevant theory capable of explaining numerous phenomena. Without appropriate self-awareness, a director who is a founder/shareholder is prone to errors, just as a director who is not a shareholder may succumb to his unique mistakes, such as willfully ignoring imminent risks.
In the context of 3L, burnout set in swiftly as we began to face scrutiny from frontline workers, friends, and collaborators. I vehemently disapproved of anything reminiscent of charity, and the “cheatsheet” project was abruptly terminated as a disciplinary measure. Simultaneously, we exercised great caution in assessing collaborators and their intentions.
Unfinished products & services
Just as an independent professional delivers a comprehensive project (even through subcontracting), so do NPOs or even Charities. For instance, the World Food Programme of the United Nations has specific goals, a defined human resources program, distinct methods of fundraising, and specific mechanisms for donation absorption.
As mentioned earlier, one of the recent discussions involved seeking support from other NPOs in exchange for the visibility of 3L. However, the specifics of these services, our limits, etc., have not been finalized. Similarly, many times, we became entangled in outreach campaigns and the creation of new products, while conspicuously bypassing any cost estimation process.
Closing, I would like to extend my respects both to the idea and to the individuals who stood by us in this endeavor. The truth is that despite any missteps, we all remain dear to each other, demonstrating forgiveness and understanding.
