Pick the partner, not the investment firm: the Seed choice that compounds
 
When Swedish founder Max Junestrand closed his Seed round in May 2024, his legal AI company Legora had raised $10.5 million. But Harvey, his well-funded competitor backed by Sequoia, had already raised over $100 million. The funding ratio was roughly 1:10.
 
Today, Legora has raised $265 million. Harvey has raised approximately $1 billion. The ratio has narrowed to 1:4.
 
How does a European founder close a gap like that in under two years? Part of the answer is building an exceptional product - Legora's AI platform has earned fierce loyalty from law firms precisely because it solves real workflow problems. But product alone doesn't explain the funding trajectory.
 
The other part of the answer lies in a choice Junestrand made at the Seed round.
 
 
The decision that shaped everything after
 
At Seed, Junestrand had 15 term sheets within seven days. Any one of those investors would have been a credible choice. The easy path would have been to optimise for valuation or round size.
 
Instead, Junestrand optimised for partner.
 
He chose Chetan Puttagunta at Benchmark - specifically because of Puttagunta's track record building enterprise software companies that sell to conservative, slow-moving buyers. At NEA, Puttagunta had led investments in MongoDB, Elastic, and Mulesoft. All three required the same patient playbook: land with developers or practitioners, prove undeniable value, then expand enterprise wide.
 
Legal AI requires exactly that approach. Law firms don't adopt technology quickly. They need to see colleagues using it successfully before committing. Junestrand recognised that pattern - and chose the investor who had navigated it three times before.
 
 
What the right partner actually does
 
Many Seed investors follow on in later rounds. That's table stakes. The question is whether they actively help you raise those rounds - and whether their involvement changes how other investors see you.
 
When Bill Gurley announced Puttagunta's arrival at Benchmark in 2018, he shared what founders had said about working with him: "the MVP of our board" who "despite being nearly 20 years younger than everyone else, managed to deliver insights no one else had."

That reputation matters when it's time to raise the next round. A strong reference from a board member with Puttagunta's track record changes the conversation with prospective investors. It's not just capital following capital - it's credibility compounding.
 
Benchmark followed on in every subsequent round. But more importantly, each new investor who joined and led - Redpoint at Series A, General Catalyst and Iconiq at Series B, Bessemer and Andreessen Horowitz at Series C - was joining a cap table anchored by a partner known for building precisely this type of company.
 
 
A bridge to the US market
 
Look at Legora's investor base and you'll notice something else that’s striking: it's almost entirely US investors. Benchmark, Redpoint, Bessemer, a]6z, General Catalyst, Iconiq, Y Combinator - there's barely a European name on the cap table.
 
This isn't accidental. For European founders with global ambitions, the path increasingly runs through US investors. They bring not just capital but customer introductions, hiring networks, and credibility with American enterprise buyers.
 
Junestrand's route illustrates how this works in practice. Y Combinator served as the initial bridge - the accelerator that gave a Stockholm-based company access to the US investor ecosystem. But Y Combinator alone doesn't guarantee what came next. Plenty of YC companies raise a Seed round and struggle thereafter.
 
The difference was the partner he chose at Seed. Puttagunta's involvement didn't just validate Legora to the YC network - it validated Legora to the broader US growth investor community. When you're building from Europe and targeting American enterprise customers, that validation is powerful.
 
 
How to evaluate the partner, not just the firm
 
So how should founders assess individual partners when they have options? A few questions matter more than others.
 
First, examine their track record at your stage and in your market. Not the firm's track record - the partner's track record. Which investments have they personally led? How did those companies perform in subsequent rounds? Did the partner stay engaged or hand the relationship to junior colleagues?
 
Second, talk to their founders - especially ones whose companies struggled. How a board member behaves when growth slows, or a round gets difficult reveals far more than how they behave when everything is working.
 
Third, understand their standing within their own firm. Partners on the investment committee, especially General Partners, typically carry more weight when it's time for follow-on decisions. This matters enormously when your company hits a rough patch and needs insider support.
 
Fourth, ask about their time horizon. Where is their fund in its lifecycle? A partner investing from a new fund has years of support ahead. One investing from a fund near the end of its life may not be around when you need them most.
 
 
When your partner leaves the firm
 
Even with the best planning, problems can arise if your partner unexpectedly moves on. This has the potential to derail a company years after the funding round. So how can founders mitigate this risk?
 
Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures has written candidly about what happens next. The company becomes orphaned: "The company loses its advocate inside the VC firm." Decisions that once had a champion - follow-on investments, bridge financing, introductions to later-stage investors - now go through people with no history, no context, and no particular reason to prioritise your company over others in the portfolio.
 
This is another reason why partner selection at the outset matters so much. Senior, well-respected partners are less likely to leave than junior investors still building their careers and looking for their next move. And if a senior partner does move on, the firm has a stronger incentive to assign another heavyweight to the relationship - not hand it to whoever has spare capacity.
 
Choosing a credible, established partner at Seed isn't just about what they can do for you while they're engaged. It's also a hedge against what happens if circumstances change.
 
 
Takeaways
 
Both Legora and Harvey made excellent investor choices - Harvey's roster includes Sequoia, Kleiner Perkins, and serial angel Elad Gil, all of whom have followed on multiple times. The point isn't that one approach was better than the other.
 
The point is that a Swedish founder, starting from a 1:10 capital disadvantage, closed that gap to 1:4 in under two years. He did it by building a product that law firms genuinely want to use but also by leveraging his most active investor, Puttagunta. That combination created so much FOMO that Legora’s last three financing rounds happened even without a formal investor deck.
 
For UK and European founders raising capital, the lesson is clear. The firm name on your term sheet matters less than the individual who will sit on your board. Their track record, their standing within their firm, their network of relationships with later-stage investors - these are the factors that compound over time.
 
When you have options at Seed, don't just take the best price. Take the best partner.

 
Let's talk.