Can AI be trusted to provide complex legal advice? In this episode, your host, Rob Hanna, is joined by Alexander Samuel Kardos-Nyheim, the Founder & CEO of Safe Sign Technologies, to discuss AI’s role in making legal advice more accessible to the general population.  

So why should you be listening in?  

You can hear Rob and Alexander discussing: 

• Why Alexander founded Safe Sign Technologies  

• How AI can make legal advice more accessible  

• AI’s unreliability  

• Being acquired by Reuters  

• Advice for aspiring entrepreneurs 

Transcript

Rob Hanna 00:00 

On today’s legally speaking podcast episode, I’m delighted to be joined by Alexander Cardos nieheim, founder and CEO of Safe Sign Technologies, a company specializing in the development of the world’s best proprietary legal large language model, built by a leading team from Cambridge and Harvard. Alexander studied Law at Cambridge University and recently completed his training contract at A&O Shearman while at university. He also founded the Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics and Art. He’s passionate about legal advocacy, policy reform, AI and legal tech. So a very big, warm welcome. Alexander.  

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 00:35 

Real pleasure to be here. Rob.  

Rob Hanna 00:36 

Oh, it’s actually a pleasure to have you on the show. And before we dive into all your amazing projects, experiences to date. We do have a customary icebreaker question here on the legally speaking podcast, which is on the scale of 1 to 10, 10 being very real. What would you rate the TV series suits in terms of its reality of the law on the scale of one to 10 only if you’ve seen it? 

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 00:59 

It’s an interesting one. Now, as someone who hasn’t seen it, I can say that I know many people who went into law having watched it, and I think regardless of how reflective suits is of what law has been so far, the sheer number of people who go into the law thinking it’s like suits may mean that it ends that the law ends up actually being like that, because so many people have gone into it thinking it’s going to be like it so. And I must say, you do get quite a few personalities at these law firms who could do a whole TV show of their own.  

Rob Hanna 01:34 

So I think that’s a great, great, great perspective, great answer. And with that, we’re going to move swiftly on to talk all about you. So to begin with, you have a very impressive background, having studied Law at Cambridge University. Can you share a bit about your experience there and how it shaped your career journey thus far? 

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 01:50 

Yeah, of course. For me, I never really wanted to be a lawyer. I wasn’t one of those people who grew up having that as a dream, I was always more interested in history and classics, and it was only as a result of a legal battle I fought as a teenager doing my GCSEs that I thought actually law might be the thing for me. And just in summary, my mother and I lived in this sadly old, derelict, but, well, I wouldn’t quite say derelict, but characterful building in South London, which came under threat from a very large development project. And we thought, Well, my mother owned the place. We should be able to fend this off quite easily, but the law had been designed in such a way that smaller communities struggle to fight these bigger development companies. And at the same time, we struggled to afford legal assistance, and found that unless you can afford a lawyer and a good one, you’re in a bit of trouble when you’re faced with a legal challenge like this. And that for me, that very difficult period in my teenage years where I was juggling my GCSEs and a levels with this big legal fight, basically having to defend my community on my own, showed me that law can be a very powerful thing if if you have a purpose and if you work hard at it. But also secondly, it showed me that there’s a real access to justice issue in the UK, and I would say around the world, and I’m sure we’ll talk more about that a little later on. But that then made me want to study law at university, and I having proposed some law reforms to House of Lords and to the Mayor of London relating to the protection of communities facing these development challenges. On that basis, I read law at Trinity College Cambridge, a very you know, it wasn’t an easy time and again. I was always more interested in more the historical side of things. So the law forcing me to think in straight lines, as opposed to swirly lines that I tend to think and was always a little bit of a baptism of fire, but that time at Cambridge laid the foundations of much of what we’ll talk about in terms of my activities today.  

Rob Hanna 04:17 

Yeah, and you know, congratulations on that, and we are going to talk about that, but I think it comes from, you know, your story, of your your why is coming from a place of really trying to help them. You know something here on the legally speaking podcast, and our sponsor, Clio, we support access to justice, and we want to use legal technology and platforms like this to reduce that gap. And interestingly, you mentioned the House of Lords. I was recently at an event, actually, at the House of Lords with Donna Denise Smith, who’s doing some incredible work from a diversity act inclusion perspective, and with oblique support and being one of the first B Corp focused legal businesses. And I think the more and more of these minds that can come together to do good, particularly with what you’re doing as well, I think hopefully we will actually achieve what is absolutely necessary. But I want to kind of step back to your sort of Cambridge. Days or around that time, because in 2020 you founded the Cambridge journal, law of politics and art, which attracted attention from pretty notable figures the likes of Lord Sumption and Lady Ardern. So what inspired you to create that journal? 

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 05:16 

It’s an interesting question. I think this risks going into the realm of politics, but I found that increasingly law and politics are becoming intertwined, sometimes not appropriately so because of, you know, the challenging political times we live in, we find ourselves going more and more to the law to try and hold our politicians accountable, or indeed, some might say, as a political device in itself, and that very difficult collision and interaction of these two fields, I found very interesting, because as a lawyer, you’re taught to think you know that the law is a body of rules that must retain their integrity and that cannot be influenced by political factors or mob rule, or whatever you want to call it. But at the same time, we find that these two things are becoming very intertwined. So that was one motivation, and I think another motivation was that there is, I think, and this applies on all sides of the political spectrum, less common ground. We find ourselves in camps, and I was trying to create a forum where people with totally different views could come together, and as long as they express themselves in a respectful way, we will give them the scope to say exactly what they want. And this is why, as you mentioned, we had the likes of Lord Sumption, who was arguing quite strongly against lockdowns and various measures taken during covid But at the same time, we had people from the other side of the debate, very senior decision makers, saying, actually, well, these measures were required, and it’s not in too many publications that you can actually see both sides of the picture, and that I find very interesting. And to much to my surprise, a lot of quite senior people in society also agreed with that, and the journal today has a life of its own. Is distributed in over 80 countries around the world, read by a very wide audience, and hopefully providing a forum where people can find some scope for common ground, even in these very divided times. 

Rob Hanna 07:33 

Yeah, absolutely. And I think it’s, it’s great work, and, you know, wonderful initiative. And you know, just again compliments all the great things that you’re you’re doing. So let’s stick with the word motivation then and move forward to 2022 What was your motivation behind founding Safe Sign Technologies? And can you explain what Safe Sign Technologies is and what the legal language model aims to address? 

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 07:59 

Yeah, of course, I’ll answer those questions in order, because the why informs very much what Safe Sign is and what the model does. So it goes very much back to my struggle as a teenager fighting these developers. And this isn’t just an elevator pitch, it really is the fire that really made me think this needs a solution. So as I mentioned, it became clear that the average person does not have access to high quality legal advice unless they are lucky enough to find a lawyer who acts pro bono Citizens Advice Bureau and similar organizations doing amazing things, are overstretched and sometimes unable to deal with some of the bigger legal issues that come in the way of individuals on a day to day basis. So I thought, surely there must be, and this was before chatgpt, I should say, Surely there must be a technological solution that that could help to equalize this problem, because it is ultimately a question of scale. The scale of lawyers who are able to give advice to individuals is simply not big enough to match the whole public need for this. If you’re a profitable business, of course, you can access legal advice very easily, but for 99% of people, it’s much more difficult. Now, I had never had any experience in AI. I’ve never written a line of code, so it was very much just an abstract principle for me. Maybe technology has some scope to automate this. I had just graduated from Cambridge, and I was doing my LPC for Alan and overy, as it was then, and and I thought, well, let me just speak to someone who might know a bit more about this, because maybe there is more to this issue. And again, this was before all the craze that chatgpt brought for. And I got in touch with the man called Felix steffe, a professor of law Cambridge, the man who I’d never met, but he had been writing my exams for the last three years, so I already had some preconceived views on him, but much to my surprise, he was very responsive to my email from a random student, as I was then to him, and he said, You know what you You are, right? There is scope to deal with this access to justice issue through a technological means. And of course, we were not the first people to think of this. This has been in the works for a long time, but I think what he found interesting about my proposal was that it would be, of course, a company that had lawyers in it and who were keeping it focused on the legal objective, but also that we would take a genuinely deep tech approach to the problem. So it would not be a question of developing some superficial technology to address the issue, but really that we would try to take a deep tech approach to the problem, that that ensures that the world we develop is really disruptive and really effective. And maybe to be more specific about what we were doing at the time and today, the founding idea of Safe Sign, and the reason for its name, as I’ll go into in a moment, is to use cutting edge artificial intelligence research to provide instant and high quality legal advice to users, whether those are businesses or consumers. The reason for the name Safe Sign is that when reading, for example, the average consumer reads up to 10, or should read up to 10 Terms and Conditions documents every day. Or at least, we tick those boxes that we accept the terms and conditions, but we never know if those are actually safe to sign. And I thought perhaps if you have an AI model that can read that contract for you, spot red flags and tell you that, then that could be very useful for individual people. Now, I think this is a comment on maybe the world of investment, venture capital, as well as just business reality, but our consumer our initial consumer focus was difficult from the point of view of attracting venture capital, because, of course, there is the the preference for B to B, and that is one of the things that caused us to pivot our our focus as a company away from, well, not so much away from consumers, but to have not only consumers as our target audience, but also businesses, and particularly with the arrival of Jonathan Schwartz DeepMind, a senior DeepMind scientist and research fellow At Harvard, in the later months of last year, we stepped much more firmly away from the more light touch, consumer, legal AI focus into the truly deep tech, large language model focus of the company now that is focused, I’d say, predominantly on B to B, but hopefully with secondary applications for consumers. And to be specific about what this model does. Now, it is a legal foundation model, which means that it is trained on fundamental legal principles and large quantities of high quality legal data. And this AI model is capable of offering a very good answer to a very broad range of legal questions across different jurisdictions. And that is not to say that this model is the be all and end all of what a legal AI model should be, but we wanted to create a better starting point for legal AI than using GPT four, which was not specialized on law, which had to anticipate a much wider group of problems, and therefore has generally a lower accuracy and robustness performance rate in the legal setting. So our focus has been much more now on developing the very best foundation model for law that does as much as it can in the legal setting as well as possible, so that we can then specialize it further into, let’s say, IP corporate due diligence, or indeed, other startups can come along and use our model and specialize it themselves.  

Rob Hanna 14:41 

Yeah, I love that. And that opens the door for collaboration, which we’re really pro here on the show. And look, you’re building a remarkable team. You know, of experts from Cambridge, Oxford, MIT, Harvard, Lenovo, you know, the list goes on. So, you know, congratulations. And I want to dive a bit deeper there on the Safe Sign Technologies’ foundations, and I love the. Aim, by the way, it makes perfect sense. It’s relatable. It’s easy to understand because you were talking there. You know, quite, quite, quite impressively, actually, about what you’re doing and how you’re kind of putting safeguard measures in place. But you know, what really impressed me about what you’re doing is the sort of high quality data at each training stage that you’re focusing on. So, general purposes, Legal Foundation, models you’re referencing safety, reliability and robustness, model, efficiency and real time inference. Could you talk us a little bit more about those four foundations and how you think they’re potentially gonna be very crucial to the overall company success? 

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 15:32 

Yeah, of course, I think you just need a very light understanding of the world of AI to know that reliability is a problem. Most of us have heard of hallucinations, where the model quite convincingly creates or fabricates information, which in an accuracy critical setting like law, is simply unacceptable. And so just to jump on, on the rely on the safety, reliability and robustness point, first, it’s clear that if AI is to have a transformative effect on the legal profession, you need to win the trust of lawyers, and you need to show them that this is a reliable tool that this traditionally conservative bunch of people trusts and is able to use and of course, from a client perspective, clients need to be able to trust that what they’re very well paid lawyers are doing involves working with good technology and not technology that risks making things up. So clearly, robustness is important. Now the problem is that if you take the approach of most startups, and this is not to discredit startups, but more to just show the difficulties facing young entrants into the AI market, legal AI market, you will use a base model which is available on the open market, whether it’s from meta, open, AI, anthropic, these models, when they were designed, were designed to be able to do almost anything reasonably well. They had to anticipate mathematical issues, engineering errors, historical mistakes, any any inquiry put by the user into that and of course, for these big companies, lacking the in house legal expertise that we did, and lacking the focus on law, it was more difficult to Create a base model that really is sharp and and and highly accurate in the legal setting. And of course, as we also know, some shortcuts have been taken by some of these players when it comes to how data is sourced, whether it’s done so in a legal and ethical way. And of course, the quality of that data and all of that then translates into a model that simply does not perform too well in highly specialist settings, like the legal setting. So what we have done with our world leading team, which of course, includes Dr Jonathan Schwartz, but also fuadisa Ahmed ezidian of Cambridge University on the AI side, and Dr Tom hartfriend of MIT has been to take lessons from other fields where AI has been applied, including the medical context, which is again, accuracy critical, and seeing if we can, through experimentation, take some of those lessons, For example, in a medical setting when it comes to drug adoption and analysis of the effectiveness of drugs on on treating certain diseases, can we take algorithmic innovations from those settings and apply them to the legal setting in a way that is totally new, and that results in a much more reliable and safe model, and that is what I think set us apart from quite an early stage. Maybe that is the beginning of an answer, but it’s also a long one. So if you want to?

Rob Hanna 19:10 

I think that’s so it’s so important that you stress the importance, you know some of those points, particularly you’re talking about the robustness, the reliability, because what you are is what you say on the tin, which is Safe Sign, so it shows that you are putting deep thought to protect the people that are using the platform for good. So I think it was a fantastic answer. And I want to talk about, you know, every entrepreneurial story sounds great, but you know, there’s challenges along the way. So, you know, I’d love to, and you were kind of touching on there. But you know, just some of the raw, you know, struggles you perhaps, and challenges you had to do, you know, what was the process of building Safe Sign like, from idea to reality, and what are some of those early challenges you face, and maybe some you’re continuing to to experience as you grow and move forward? 

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 19:57 

Yeah, of course, I think I’ve always been. Open about the challenges. I had no business background. I was fresh out of university and and, you know it, it was, it was a tough journey. As anyone who starts a business goes through this phase. You start with the initial excitement. You have an idea. It seems so perfect. You think, oh, how can this not? You know, succeed. And then, and then you start to do a bit of digging, and you think, oh, no, someone already does something similar. And then you go past that, and you think, well, right? There’s a competitive landscape here. Can we set ourselves apart and try to do something unique? And that’s all very well. You can plan this out on paper beautifully, but then when it comes to implementation, that’s, I think, where the biggest difficulties are. And I think the main challenge I faced was that I had this idea to build an AI company that solved, helped solve this access access to justice issue, but you have to get a very good team in place to do that. And the AI world is so competitive from a recruitment perspective, and it is so capital intensive that there are huge expectations of salary and the like, if you really want the top people, and I really did want the top people, but lacking investment from an early stage or any serious investment, I had to go off people. I had to rely on people’s basically goodwill and guts to get involved with someone who’s never started a business before, who is very likely to make loads of mistakes. And I needed people who were okay with a bit of a rollercoaster ride. So what ended up happening was we got this remarkable collection of Cambridge law professors, Cambridge AI scientists, Harvard and MIT AI researchers, a team that you would usually think would be almost impossible to bring in at this sort of stage of a company, but through, I think, a really common sense of purpose, we thought, right, we are going to not look at other opportunities. For the time being. Of course, we can go off and do other things, but this access to justice issue and our approach that we were taking, not just to the legal problem of access to justice, but the AI problems that we’re dealing with here, of safety, robustness, reliability, data quality, that is something that for an AI researcher, is relevant for the whole of the AI industry. Law is simply one domain in which you can try to deal with some of those issues. So we had a very motivated team, and the team that was willing to take risks, and the team that ultimately trusted me, even through times when, frankly, I didn’t trust myself. So there was the team element, and then, and if it wasn’t for the team, of course, we would not have made it. But from a personal perspective, as I mentioned, I was juggling a training contract at Alan over Sherman, as it is now, I joined ano, the legacy A&O company, and I wanted to be a good trainee as well as a successful entrepreneur. So it was very much a matter of not letting the two worlds collide. So A&O working hours, like many law firms, are quite tough. So I would wake up at maybe four, five in the morning to start work on Safe Sign. Work on that until I had until the minute I had to leave my flat to go to work. Then I’d work for A&O up until lunchtime. My lunch break would be taken up with Safe Sign again, then back to A&O up until however late it needed to be. And then anytime I had in the middle of the night, I would spend back on Safe Sign. And it was that on repeat for two years, and that was very personally challenging. And you can imagine, you know, the number of friends I, I sort of didn’t reply to, months on end, and all the rest of it. And then, combined with that, of course, the energy strains is the is the emotional strain, when you have what became quite a capital intensive company having, eventually, we had to have a salary team, we had to incur large computing costs, and from from month to month, having to think, right, I am the one that 14 people are relying on for their paycheck at the end of the month. But I’m also doing this research, this research exercise for this partner as a trainee, and trying to separate those two worlds and stay productive in both of them, it was a bit of a challenge. And then from an investment perspective, just in terms of, I think the final big challenge, we never actually got institutional funding. We operated on Angel investment for the whole life of the company. And the first time we tried to pursue venture capital fund. Funding, we ended up getting acquired. So I think from a funding perspective, we had quite an unusual journey. But the motivating thing for me, and what I would say to other people who might be afraid of multitasking like I did, or who might think, Oh, the investment challenges are too great if you simply put one foot in front of the other for long enough, and and keep your wits together, you give yourself a chance to succeed. And, and if you have a very good team as well that can deal with this sort of risk and volatility, then I think you’re very well placed. 

Rob Hanna 25:36 

Really well said, Alexander, really well said. I always say, if you have the guts to start, you’ve got the guts to finish, and so keep going, step by step by step. And yeah, I love that story. So let’s talk about the success. Because, like you said, you know, it’s not smooth sailing. You were able to balance the two ultimately, yes, you did have to give up sacrifice, but unfortunately, anything worth having probably does require element of sacrifice and entrepreneurship. So let’s talk about the article. Then in the article, Thomson, Reuters buys UK AI legal startup. As market heats up, Reuters CTO States safe science models have demonstrated industry leading performance across several domain specific evaluations. So how did you go about conducting those particular evaluations, and how did it feel when Reuters ultimately did choose to acquire you?  

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 26:25 

Well, it was an interesting story, and I think I can talk about this. We first released an industry wide mailing list, or newsletter rather, when we, as an independent startup achieved some quite promising performance results on an internal evaluation we had conducted, of course, respecting academic standards. And we have senior professors in the company that ensured that our evaluations were robust. And once we released that newsletter, I think almost within a few minutes, we got a response back from many of of the main players in the legal AI sector, but Thomson Reuters jumped on it within minutes, and they said, well, we need to talk. So we got on a call with them, and we were initially really talking to them from an investment perspective, thinking, and it was clear that we we were doing something scientifically that was relevant to them, and that’s why they were taking an interest in us. But really it was an investment, an investment question at the beginning, and then as we spoke more and more. And as our scientists began to speak to their scientists, it became clear that where that we have a huge amount in common when it comes to the research focus. So Reuters and Safe Sign, or Thomson, Reuters and Safe Sign are both trying to take a genuinely deep tech approach to the legal problem. And I almost don’t want to call us a legal AI company, really. I regard us as an AI company which has a legal focus. And there is a difference there, because I think there is a tendency to, as I mentioned before, to take a legal first approach and then find an AI wrapper solution to solve that. But that doesn’t give you a long term credible scientific or technological moat. It makes you highly replicable in the future. Both Reuters and us were very focused on being difficult to replicate and on leading, truly leading from a scientific perspective. So it became clear that we are doing pretty much the same work anyway. And at one point within Reuters, the decision was made, okay, let’s, let’s take, let’s kick the tires a bit more on on Safe Sign, see how good their model actually is. And of course, for us, within Safe Sign, we, you know, we thought, wow, this is going to be quite stressful. We have no idea what they’re going to ask our model to do, but all we can do is prepare it as best we can, and then leave it in the in the locked dark room for them to test. And we still don’t necessarily know what they’ve tested it on. They have a very wide range of internal evaluations. But as we had hoped and as we had aimed for, the model performed very well. And maybe to give you a sense of the sort of thing they might have been testing for, Reuters. Thomson, Reuters, as I need to call them, because Reuters is really just a press agency, is a very large legal information company, provides other services too, but 97% of all law firms globally rely on Thomson Reuters technology to act as a sort of Google for lawyers, a Google for law. And there is huge scope there for AI to make the technology more accurate and for it to be more a. Efficient at producing content, and that’s, I think, where they were trying to test our model on but beyond that, of course, we were two different companies, and we, we, from our perspective, never wanted to be acquired at such an early stage. But it was simply the, I think, the kindred spirits that we felt we had in terms of our scientific teams that really gave the impetus for the acquisition. 

Rob Hanna 30:26 

Yeah, lots of shared values there. And sometimes, you know it is the right time. And you know also, you know your first offer is usually your best offer, you know sometimes. And so, you know a bird in the hand is always better than potentially something that may be lost down the line. So no, I think it’s a tremendous success story, and I think it’s super exciting times ahead. And congratulations on the acquisition. I want to kind of quickly, um, switch gears before we close, because you’re also the founder and chief executive of the urban development reform organization. I know something you’re passionate about. So, um, you know, tell us a bit more about the focus of this organization, and what are some of the key projects you’re working on? 

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 31:01 

Yeah, of course. So again, I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but the why for me, really is the access to justice issue, and the origin of that, as I mentioned to you, was this fight I had to protect my community from demolition at the hands of some developers, and my community was not the only one that had this problem. This is something of course, we have a housing shortage in the UK, and this is a real problem. But what I found, and continue to find, is that the approach that governments of both shades take is to displace real communities, tear them apart and put in some skyscrapers and let people from all different parts of the country move there and artificially create new communities. And this is not really something that I think respects the fundamental right to property that we would expect in a democracy as old as this country’s and and it’s also, I think it will deter people from really wanting to get on the housing ladder and and buy a property, if they know that they can lose it if they happen to be a little bit unlucky, and that a hotel is scheduled to be to be built in the area or on their land. So this is a national problem that people are struggling to keep their homes when faced with very commercial development projects, and my focus in the urban development reform organization is to work with lawyers around the country to help very small communities keep their homes, or at least have a fair fight when dealing with these very well advised big development companies. Some of the projects we’ve worked on include saving some Tudor cottages in Cambridgeshire. I did that actually when I was at Cambridge studying, and that was a real, really good excuse to miss a supervision with one of my supervisors. And of course, it was a wonderful story that we were able to help that family. And we’re also working on a number of live development proposals now in London and Manchester and Leeds, where we have remarkable communities, often from working class backgrounds, who have been there for decades, if not hundreds of years, and for the first time, are finding themselves under threat from demolition. So it’s very rewarding, and it’s something where I hope there is also a direct technological solution, maybe through a general purpose AI model, that can help everyday people with these challenges.  

Rob Hanna 33:38 

Yeah, and we absolutely support that, Alexander, and I think it’s tremendous, and you’re a real beacon of hope and inspiration for for lots of people. And I guess that lends to a sort of follow up question I’d like to ask you, which is advice, you know, advice you would give to aspiring entrepreneurs or students looking to start their own tech or indeed, legal tech ventures? What be sort of one or two top tips? 

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 34:00 

Yeah, it’s a difficult one, because I feel that I made so many mistakes and, you know, and it’s just, it’s difficult when you’ve been through a bit of a baptism of fire like this, to feel like you can give advice. And all I would, I would say two things. I’d say, number one, really have a strong sense of the why. Why are you doing this? Is it because it’s fine if you just want to make some money and be in business, but I think you do need a real if you want to come across as sincere and compelling to investors or or to potential members of your team who are trying to bring on board, you have to convince them that this is a mission that will have an impact on society. Everyone wants to feel not only that they’ve been successful professionally, but they’ve contributed somehow. They’ve done something significant. And I really tried to weave in the why the Access to Justice point into almost every meeting we had in Safe Sign into into everything we did. And I think that’s what gave us some of the resilience that we had to show throughout the process. Because circumstances will change. You will have difficulties. You’ll need to do your pivots to stay, you know, agile and relevant, but if you always are staying true to your why, then you can be sure that at least you’re going in the right direction and you’re not being blown around by the wind. And the second thing I’d I’d say, is just pure resilience. I don’t consider myself the most resilient person, but I was lucky. I had some supportive friends and family members, but it is going to be an exceptionally challenging journey. You are going to have personal stress, you’re going to have risks that you’re taking and that you’re asking other people to take, and you just need to be able somehow to almost laugh at the sheer difficulty of the situation and just think, right, it’s difficult, but there must be a solution. And if we win this battle, and we win enough of the next few battles, eventually will arrive at a day when the weather is better and and we can succeed.  

Rob Hanna 36:07 

I think you’ve been taking the words out of my mouth. I’ve been preaching to people for years and years, Alexander, I was just nodding at everything you were saying there. I think business has to be fun, because you have to take enjoyment. But you know, just sort of picking on that, I always say to you, your message, your message, right? And your Why should make you cry, and you have a deep rooted why you know really comes from a place of you know, something that’s important to you. And I think it lends itself nicely to one of my favorite quotes of all time when it comes to resilience, which is from Winston Churchill that very well, have you known, Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It’s the courage to continue that counts, and you’re a real story to that. So it’s been an absolute inspiration having you on Alexandra, I think what you’ve achieved, and no doubt, will continue to do, will be inspirational for many of our listeners, and if they want to follow your journey, or indeed learn more about safe science technologies and the urban development reform organization, where can they go to find out more? Feel free to shout out any websites, any social media handles will also make sure we share them with very special episode for you too. 

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim 37:04 

Of course. Well, thank you very much for your time. Rob, a real pleasure. 

Rob Hanna 37:23 

Well, there we go. I think it’s a tremendous why. So thanks so much. Once again, Alexander, it’s been absolutely pleasure having on the show from all of us on the Legally Speaking Podcast sponsored by Clio over and out.