recently rated:

Rated by 27

4.0 3.7 2.8 2.8 3.4

3.3

Index Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Geneva, Europe

top rated funds:

Rated by 13

3.0 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.4

3.4

Fidelity Growth Partners Europe

Certified

$$$$$ London, Europe

Rated by 16

3.9 3.6 3.1 2.9 3.5

3.4

GRP Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Los Angeles, US West

Rated by 17

3.5 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.2

3.4

Scale Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Foster City, US West

Rated by 27

3.6 2.9 2.9 3.9 3.2

3.3

The Founders Fund

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 39

3.4 3.4 2.9 3.4 3.5

3.3

Polaris Venture Partners

 

$$$$$ Waltham, US East

Rated by 15

3.8 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.6

3.3

Azure Capital Partners

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 10

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.4

3.3

Adams Capital Management, Inc.

 

$$$$$ Sewickley, US East

Rated by 10

3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.2

3.3

Noro-Moseley Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Atlanta, US East

Rated by 38

3.0 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.5

3.3

Hummer Winblad Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 23

3.3 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.3

3.3

Allegis Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 48

3.6 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.7

3.3

Bessemer Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Larchmont, US East

Rated by 38

3.6 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.3

3.3

Foundation Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 34

3.4 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.4

3.3

InterWest Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 14

3.6 3.5 3.5 2.8 3.4

3.3

Meritage Funds

Certified

$$$$$ Denver, US West

Rated by 47

3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.2

3.2

Mayfield Fund

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 10

2.6 3.4 3.6 3.2 2.9

3.2

Palomar Ventures

 

$$$$$ Santa Monica, US West

Rated by 25

3.4 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.1

3.2

Sigma Partners

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 31

3.1 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.4

3.2

BlueRun Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 33

2.9 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.2

3.2

Opus Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 13

3.0 2.6 3.8 3.3 3.1

3.2

Kepha Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Waltham, US East

Rated by 10

3.6 3.5 3.2 2.2 3.5

3.2

Sequoia Capital Israel

 

$$$$$ Oceanos Hotel, ..., ME / Africa

Rated by 26

3.3 3.3 3.3 2.6 3.1

3.1

Union Square Ventures

 

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 14

3.4 3.2 3.5 2.8 2.4

3.1

Trident Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 29

3.6 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.8

3.1

Draper Fisher Jurvetson Gotham Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 42

3.8 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.6

3.1

Accel Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 20

3.4 2.8 3.1 3.3 2.9

3.1

Sutter Hill Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 22

3.3 3.4 3.2 2.5 3.1

3.1

Emergence Capital Partners

Certified

$$$$$ San Mateo, US West

Rated by 13

3.5 3.2 3.6 3.0 2.1

3.1

Balderton (Benchmark EU)

Certified

$$$$$ London, Europe

Rated by 51

3.4 2.6 3.0 3.1 2.8

3.0

Draper Fisher Jurvetson

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 23

3.7 2.6 2.9 2.7 3.0

3.0

Matrix Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US East

HomeShowcaseTermsAdviceOpenDiscussCoFound

Sign-upHelpFor VCsFor MediaAdvertiseTop VCsBanned VCs

This is a repost from a blog that is going live on Monday morning on Bootstrapper.com, I figured I would post it here first...

So today's post is about a topic near and to everyone in our community, The "inlaws". By that I mean the inherent conflict of interest that tends to occur within the legal community in relation to the venture community. I've gotten to know a number of lawyers in the community quite well over the last few years and have a lot of respect for them and are friends with a number of lawyers, however it is a small community and an interesting thing that occurs is that the same law firm can and often does represent both sides in a transaction (either directly or indirectly). What do I mean? Well, a law firm can represent a fund in one deal and the entrepreneur in another and both be going on simultaneously. It creates a confusing situation.

Outside of the venture sphere, the situation could be seen as a conflict of interest but given our world, it is standard practice. Often times the lawyer may be the one that introduced the company to the investor which is great for both parties but further complicates the question of representation.

The founding member of The Funded always likes to say that the lawyers work for the fund not for you and that the second $ is closed, it is no longer your counsel.

Given that the fund represents (generally) infinitely more business than a single entrepreneur, there is a point in there. On a technical level corporate counsel represent the controlling shareholder or bloc of shareholders but on a practical level it's something to think about.

Overall, it's usually good to have a venture law firm for your company because they do tend to know how to raise money and the process, however it may make sense to have a personal counsel review everything for how it looks from your perspective as the entrepreneur because you want someone looking at your docs that is representing you personally, not your company.

To conclude: Cover Your Ass no matter what you do - I've been screwed out of vesting and know many entrepreneurs who have as well. Protect yourself and make sure you have protections in place.

We're based in ATL, and have been working with local firms. As we are finishing our angel round - which we had to do ourselves - I'm considering a change. We need to keep improving our IP portfolio, prep and execute a Series A (

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati are in Bay Area and have a reputation for life sciences companies like ours. Has anybody had any experience with them"

Who would YOU recommend"