It is my personal belief that the team composition depends on the type of opportunity and where the core competitive advantage will come from. If you are a lawyer, and you want to make a paperless solution for legal firms, you better believe you'll need a technology wiz. However, if the technology component is honestly only a small part of the overall problem, then you can perhaps look to getting an employee or contract out the tech work.

Don't force yourself to be someone you're not.

The point of the statement is to do just enough so that you don't drive away potential technical cofounders. Basically make yourself more attractive as a cofounder by avoiding the traps that many other non-technical cofounders fall into.

Learn some basic hacking in (insert a programming language (that's not VB) here, whatever the paradigm). :-)

Hackers and lawyers are often at odds because the hackers want to do something interesting that could be a threat to someone else's profits. That person hires lawyers to stop the hackers. Within the same organization, hackers and lawyers are often on opposite sides because the lawyer's job is to avoid risks while the hacker's job is to seek opportunity.

If you can avoid or limit the latter problem, you should be ok as far as fundamental sources of conflict go. YC is a good place to look, but you'll probably have to open up about your idea a bit more than most people want to in order to attract quality hackers.

[0] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10903211/

However, stereotype has its limits in startups. My own experience is that most formal training is counter-productive when it comes to running a startup and all of us need to "unlearn" whether we are a lawyer or a hacker.

I summarized my observation as the following ...

"Anyone can be an entrepreneur but they must not have the mindset of a lawyer, an engineer ("hacker") or a doctor.

First of all, there are always more than two sides to an issue and often the right place is to be is in the middle - an option that a lawyer does not have. Also, there is not always an answer to every question; or if there is an answer, it might not be unique. So waiting for perfect data to arrive at a perfect solution is a luxury that I don't have as an entrepreneur. If that bothers me, then I should go back to being an engineer. Finally, as an entrepreneur, I often have to shoot my patient (and I have)."

http://www.lovemytool.com/blog/2007/10/vc-worst-enemy.html

Hope this helps.

--Denny--

Denny K Miu

In one of my earliest post, I wrote about what makes startup fail (or succeed).

http://www.lovemytool.com/blog/2007/09/why-startups-fa.html

What I have learned in the last five years turns to be very different from what I have learned in the five years before that. When there was a viable market for startups (i.e., robust IPO and M&A opportunities), the limitation often had to do with money. But when there is no market (i.e., no liquidity) for startups (as it is now), success has to do with a viable market for the product.

So it seems to me that it doesn't really matter if you are a lawyer or a "hacker", as long as you are the "surrogate" customer and knows intimately what your targeted customers want and what their pain points. Then having a "hacker" as a partner is important only so far as he/she will be the one to implement the product idea and is in fact, quite "interchangeable".

Good luck.

--Denny--

Denny K Miu

No, YC is not a bad place to look for people interested in starting a start-up. Just beware, because the word 'hacker' is overused in this place.

Hey Sam. You have 2 immediate problems. No hacking skills and no co-founder ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=80108

    So if I was to be facetious  I'd say give up. 

There is a flip side to this however. In domain specific industries such as law technology. You can make lots of in-roads. The legal system in Australia [1] is slow on technology uptake and archaic compared to other markets. So anyone who can build products, services for the legal industry really has a leg-up compared to pure technology companies.

So what do you do? Well you will have to get a technical co-founder. Depending on the problem domain you are solving a technical co-founder will not be at any greater advantage than yourself . Why? Because they will not have the deep understanding of what is required. Your strengths will be that no matter what technical solution any technical person creates, the stuffy, inherently conservative legal market will probably not endorse an unproven product without both legal provenance and precedence . [2]

So yes, without a hacker or someone who can turn your legal ideas into code you will fail. Just as equally I imagine most hackers will fail (miserably) without your expertise and pedegree. So I would not give up on building a startup for the legal services or professionals. [3]

[0] Ringtail Solutions ~ http://goonmail.customer.netspace.net.au/2005MAR202250.html

[1] I imagine the English legal system is just as backward as the Australian system.

[2] Ringtails secret weapon here was to create a "discovery" gathering tool and casebook for legal cases. Then having a very close relationship with a top Australian legal firm ( http://www.bdw.com.au ) and to not only get the software to be used in a Royal Comission but also have the good skill (luck, timing) to be on the winning side ~ http://www.legaline.com/oct1999.htm and http://www.canberra.edu.au/ncf/publications/emilyhilly1.pdf

[3] Shots taken showing Lawyer desktops and the amount of information legals have to juggle each day dealing with cases ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/31777304@N00/sets/1180151/