Well this is just stupid.

Outsourcing should not be surprising. Accounting firms have been doing this for years.

And before someone mumbles something about "unauthorized practice of law," those statutes are only relevant if you're physically present and practicing law in the state in question, and nobody else is supervising your work. It's not NY unauthorized practice of law for a California associate to work on a NY matter from California, or for an unadmitted NY associate to work on a NY matter if supervised.

These Indian lawyers are helping to BURST THE BIGLAW BUBBLE!

I can't WAIT until a client using these services loses a multi-million dollar judgment even though at first, it looked like the legal issues were minor and inconsequential.

Yeah, I'm really going to let some ESL drone analyze an American English deposition...

This won't work for litigation. Why? Because I've never known a successful attorney (or associate) who hasn't at least studied the cases and who hasn't fully prepared by KNOWING the case inside and out. It is the mental processing of the information. Sure, partners don't write the briefs (for the most part), but they still should study the briefs and know the cases for excellent representation in court. This guy's business model is based on someone over in India (or outside the USA) doing all of the research, document analysis, and writing, and presenting that "work product package" to the partner or associate in the USA so that they can "study" it and present "their" case on behalf of the client.

Sounds like an MBA-style "canned brief" business model which is doomed to fail. There's no substitute for knowing your case and the supporting cases inside and out and THINKING about the case prior to presenting your case. The more you do this, the better you will be and the more the client will benefit.
This kind of crap may work with filling out UCC filing statements, but it WON'T work with litigation. I pity the corporate clients (idiot MBAs) who are going to buy this (or force their GCs to buy this). What's the old saying? YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

The ABA has to step in here. This is crazy.

Once the medical community started outsourcing its education to India, it went to shambles.

"I can't WAIT until a client using these services loses a multi-million dollar judgment even though at first, it looked like the legal issues were minor and inconsequential."

But this is what those E&O insurance policies are for (as noted in the article):

"The policy and coverage limits reflect the work the client wants Manthan to do; Manthan takes out a large enough policy to make their clients comfortable with their liability protection. If the client has a problem with work performed by Manthan, then Manthan can make the client whole with the help of its E&O insurance."

What about cases where there are just tons and tons of documents that need to be reviewed? Stuff that gets done by contract attorneys?

This will be good for people who can still get jobs as associates. They will do less scut work and will be more like junior partners. They will be doing more supervision and not getting their hands dirty as much (like Elisa of Notes from the Breadline).

The problem is that the overall demand for associates will drop off sharply. There will be many fewer positions for associates at big firms, since so much of the scut work is being done in India.

5, yeah, it's not like American firms ever screw up cases.

1 = parody of a xenophobic hick (I hope).

Great. More fear mongering from our friends at ATL. Lat, do you realize that if biglaw collapses to the extent that is hinted at in EVERY post, you will have very few eyeballs left?

9,

That E&O insurance won't make the firm whole for the loss of the client and ding to its reputation.

The question is, did the firm make enough increased profits from this model to compensate for those losses that the E&O insurance won't.

"Depending on their level of experience, Manthan generally pays annual salaries between $10,000 and $20,000 (but some senior lawyers can make close to $30,000)."

International trade has an effect on wages. Expect to see associate salaries continue to fall. Not to Indian levels, but still off the current high.

1: You OUR an idiot.

Agree wholeheartedly with 2. I hope you at least sold them some advertising Elie for such a shameless sell out.

Our corporate experience with engineering professionals based in India has been catastrophic, and GE and their patent attorney intiative was not too successful either. Totally different work ethics, motivations and cultures. I'm not even sure the document review model works that well except to motivate the US based outfits.

Or maybe even OUR country.

Expect Pete Kalis of K&L Gates to shortly announce the opening of an office in India accompanied by a lot self-congratulations. Expect K&L to pay local market rates. The South-Asian attorneys in the Bombay office will be smarter and more professional than most of K&L's partners in the mainland. Then expect the partners to also outsource the Chairman position to India. One can dream anyway.

Get your heads out of your a$$es and face facts.

The reality is that you DO NOT need a super special education or level of expertise to do some of the things that junior associates do. Just because we're lawyers doesn't mean we're immune from outsourcing. On the contrary, the redundancy of our work makes us perfect candidates. You'd have to have been a fool not to see this coming down the road even BEFORE the crisis hit.

If you're smart and business savvy (and many of you are not), you'll always ask yourself how are you adding value? What is it that you're doing that you do so well, whereby you are difficult to replace? The more easily your tasks can be handed off to someone else to complete, the more easily you can be outsourced.

"The difference between what the firm pays Manthan and what it charges the client for the corresponding work generates higher profits for the firm."

Ummm, don't think so, at least not unless the client will go for it. Don't forget about that pesky ABA Model Rule 1.5(e) regarding fee division between lawyers who are not in the same firm.

At least this will create some openings in customer service at Dell.

17 and 19 didn't get 1's joke

As a county law librarian, I work mainly with solo, small law firm lawyers and self-representing litigants.

I feel sorry for the law firm librarians affected by layoffs.

But daily, I work with many lower/mid-classes people who can not find/afford legal representation. Overall, county law libraries in California do a good job at empowering people. But just like giving people a wrench doesn't make them auto mechanic, giving people access to legal information is still far from giving them actual representation.

Isn't it funny how lawyers complain about not having jobs, while many people are complaining about not able to find lawyers to represent them?

— From California

22 - It is not fee sharing, any more than paying any other overhead cost - rent, xeroxing, coffee - is "fee sharing" with your landlord, office equipment provider, or Starbucks.

And I as a client am going to pay full firm rates while the firm subcontract to substandard labor that "bills" at $10/hour?

Me thinks Potnis has not thought this all the way through...

13, keep bashing those "xenophobic hicks" as your job gets moved to India

1 wasn't a joke. It was a result of someone having read months of Elie's posts.

There are already several state bar opinions on this, and if I recall correctly the ABA blessed it not too long ago.

The numbers don't lie. Let us talk numbers. A know nothing associate with no skills is paid $160K per year. Assuming he/she bills 2,000 hours at $350.00 per hr., your gross revenue per associate is $700,000.00. Deduct the $160K of salary plus another $160K in secretary salary, pro-rata office space rental, health benefits, 401K, misc. perks, and the net profit per associate is $380,000.00.
Now we all know clients resent paying know nothing associates more than $250/hr. Now, if you hire a foreign outsourced attorney, bill them at $250 per hour and get 2,000 billables, that is a net revenue of $500,000.00. You pay that foreign based attorney the equivalent of $50,000 USD and your net profit per attorney is $450,000.00 or $70,000 more than paying a know nothing associate. There are no other overhead costs with hiring a foreign based attorney (i.e., office rent, secretary, health benefits, profit sharing) and best of all, the firm would be insulated from defending baseless wrongful termination and sexual harrassment lawsuits. The numbers don't lie. I think it is clear how we need to change our business model.

Rather than whine about legal jobs going to India, let's try this thought for a change.

1. We cut the number of law schools in the country to 50
2. Law school tuition is $4K a year (I know a few Texas graduate schools that charge 4k a year).
3. No more scholarships. All tuition paid for by the student. So school has money to spend on infrastructure.
4. Since lawyers graduate with only 12K in debt, they can easily see themselves working for 45K associate salary and stop expecting 120K.
5. Firms would rather hire a JD for 45-55K than hire someone overseas for 30K.
6. Life is beautiful

Of course, for this to happen there needs to be price adjustment in 2 more areas:

1. Home prices: A condo is not worth 1.2 million dollars no matter where it is. Not even on the friggin moon. So, get the home values back to 1970 values.

2. Cars are not worth 40K (yes not even friggin beemers). Make them 10K flat (yes, it can be done.. even though the car looks and feels like crap, Tata Nano is out for 2K in India.. we can definitely put one together for 10K with 5 times the safety and features).

Peace!!

22, 27, I'm pretty sure the clients will know what they are getting, and are receiving a sizable discount that still leaves profits for the Indian firm and the American firm. Win-win for everyone, except the American firm's competitors.

31, also no four months of paid leave each time a female lawyer decides to crank out a kid.

Among others:
ABA:
http://www.abanet.org/media/youraba/200809/article11.html

New York:
http://www.nycbar.org/Ethics/eth2006.htm

The problem with this approach is that it can't last. Sooner or later clients will get smart and demand a cut of those profits, ie. competition will drive the savings almost to nil. This will increase money for the early adopters but the more popular it becomes the more ephemeral those profits will become to the law firm.

One of the reason to have associates do the work is that it's easier to sell the value-added proposition to clients. Note that I did not say there was any added value for the client over outsourcing. Only that there appears to be. But appearances are important.

"Since lawyers graduate with only 12K in debt, they can easily see themselves working for 45K associate salary and stop expecting 120K."

My salary expectation has nothing to do with the level of debt I'm carrying, so I don't think this will work.

Comment removed by moderator.

32 - are you God or a Dictator?

If this helps lower legal fees, it will be good for the American economy. This is just another episode of globalization creating efficiencies that benefit the American consumer.

Was this "post" a paid advertisement? Because that's how it reads ... By next week there will be ads all over atl for this Indian firm

This is very bad news for support staff:

"Through using an outsourcing company, a firm can reduce the number of secretaries and paralegals it has on staff, i.e., as full-time employees. It can keep only those secretaries or paralegals that it can keep 100% utilized, all of the time. For all work over that 100% utilization level, or for projects that require a short-term ramp-up, like a trial or a deal closing, the firm can turn to Manthan (or a similar outsourcing firm) for support. No more paying secretaries and paralegals to play solitaire and solve Sudoku puzzles; they will have enough work to keep them occupied for every hour of every day."

No more goofing off? That's the best part of being support staff....

If industry leaders such as Clifford Chance and Baker say so, well wow, this must be a GREAT idea. Wachtell, Cleary, DPW, what's wrong with you, the real brainiacs have spoken!!

13, keep bashing those "xenophobic hicks" as your job gets moved to India

26 - If you read 22 carefully, you'll see that the post spoke to fee division with OTHER LAWYERS. So, your hypo is relevant only if you, your Starbucks barrista, your landlord, and your office equipment provider all happen to be lawyers working the same case. Promise. Give the rules a read, even a casual one.

This reallocation of capital and labor worked for the manufacturing sector (offshoring mainly) and lower level service industries like restaurants, construction, and landscaping (immigration). The United States simultaneously saw an explosion in wealth creation and prosperity. Think 1950s onward, and particularly since the early 1990s. There's no reason why this shouldn't be another positive piece in creating efficiencies in a global marketplace.

This comment is addressed to post no. 33.

Your point is duly noted. Of course had I mentioned your point, I would be labeled a sexist "pig." I have no problem with women advancing at the firm so long as they don't remind me that they are women and have feminine needs (e.g., reproducing, fertility doctor and OBGYN appts.).

So, who hires this Indian law firm in 20 years when law firms no longer exist because they stopped hiring associates and the last partner just retired? Very Children of Men-esque.

How can you outsource pounding ones secretary in her ass? How?

I just saw you post.

46 - I just saw you post that

So, this means a call to a junior attorney will start to feel more and more like calling tech support 800 numbers...great...

44, what's the difference between a law firm paying an outsourcing firm for Indian attorneys, and paying a temp agency for contract attorneys, keeping a cut in both cases?

So, this means a call to a junior attorney will start to feel more and more like calling tech support 800 numbers...great...

31 and 33 - And even better than that: No more paying inflated salaries for sexist white males to sit around jerking off and posting on law blogs. Enjoy your funemployment!

44 - The outsourcing workers are not U.S.-qualified lawyers subject to fee sharing rules. They are Indian lawyers, but their Indian law degrees are - no disrespect intended - pretty much worthless. These people might not as well not be "lawyers."

This is why these outsourcing firms keep stressing that they are "not practicing law." Otherwise they would be subject to all sorts of rules (including but not limited to fee sharing).

There is a limit as to what these Indian lawyers can do. At most, they'll take a few job of contract attorneys who doc. review all day long. In summary, forget it, they are out of their element. Really. I would be way more concerned with biglaw losing business to mid-size firms or regional firms.

52 - I agree.

44 - This is no different than using contract lawyers. Are they "lawyers" in some sense? Sure. But not the sense that is relevant to fee-sharing rules.

This whole outsourcing relies upon the premise - the fiction? - that this is not legal practice. If it is the practice of law, then it all collapses.

Does employing a Texas firm count as outsourcing?

52 makes an important point in support of outsourcing. If firms can successfully contract legal work within the United States, that is good precedent for contracting work anywhere. The cost of labor is just so incredibly low in India compared to the United States that this could have an important impact on the affordability of legal counsel.

54, by "funemployment" did you actually mean to type "partnership"? You still need the males around to be the ultimate supervisors and client liaisons. I'm not sure why you think they have to be "white" though.

I want to see a court someday smack down a firm who claims these outsourcing shops aren't practicing law.

"Soon the jobs will be outsourced to PuerTTTo Rico."

-- SotomayOR!

How is the junior associate supposed to learn in order to do "higher level work" if he never does any "lower level work." That's how you are able to do "higher level work" because you learned the basics from "lower level work."

For example, you learn how to take a deposition by reading other deposition transcripts. Yes, attending them is necessary too, but being able to review and analyze the transcript, see the questions and answers and how they fit into that MSJ you're doing is how you learn to take your own deposition to set up for an MSJ in the future. it doesn't help turn a junior associate into a senior associate if someone else is doing that background work.

Primarily, i can see this outsourcing used for the document review contract work that employed a fuck-ton of BLS grads for years. The mid-ranged salary contract attorneys are the ones really feeling the heat. but yeah, it could eventually trickle up to junior BIGLAW attorneys and continue on its way up to non-equity (non-business producing) partners.

BE WARNED!

Look, if professional ethical rules are an obstacle, we can just change the rules to allow outsourcing. Amend provisions about "unauthorized practice of law" in some way or another. A lot of people are acting like we don't have the power to make the necessary changes.

This can't work and I agree with everyone above who has said so. My spin is that language barriers will limit the ability to do the hair splitting and finer legal analysis that often makes the difference in big cases. So to whomever said they expect that clients will lose big if the wave goes this way. agreed. That is unless somehow these people learn English spectactularly well, but given where we're at with just the outsourcing of customer service type jobs, I find that doubtful. I am not being racist or a snob by saying this. I'd say the same if it was Russians or natives of some other country where English is not the first language.

65,

Let's let clients make that call. The market will be the judge and will find an equilibirium.

This is only worrisome news for those who aspire to do grunt work. Aditya will not be able to argue a case to a jury in Brooklyn and he won't be able to counsel a corporate client through the political and economic waters of Albany. Real lawyers need not be concerned about this development.

14,

You are dead-on. ATL has become a hotbed of fearmongering, and not much more.

That is because ATL *WAS RELEVANT* when perks were flowing and salaries were rising.

Biglaw associates loved to watch ATL to see the next round of improvements to their quality of life.

There are different times, however, and there's no point in reading ATL unless you love getting depressed.

So, the only solution is to let ATL go the way of AutoAdmit, and stop reading.

We can resume reading ATL--or it's successor blog--when things turn up.

In any event, it sounds like you, like me, have had enough of this FEARMONGERING nonsense.

Bye ATL

65, all outsourcing involves the lower-level work going abroad and the higher-level work, which foreigners cannot do competently, staying in the US. Since the overall legal costs are lower, higher demand increases the total legal pie and the amount of higher-level work. Globalization is good for talented US attorneys, bad for untalented ones.

Dollars to donuts this post was paid for by ManTTThan. Did the guy write it himself too? I have friends in the tech field who have large portions of their operations in India. I told him that it must save his company tons of money, and my friend, who is the CTO, told me that at best it's break-even. Although you would think that the folks in India would be good at tech related stuff, he says it takes 3-5 Indian workers to equal the productivity of one of his guys in the US. In addition, there is the added element (according to him) of correcting the myriad f-ups they make over there.

Perhaps most importantly, Elie fucks sheep. There is a video. When will the world wake up to his bestialic-sins?

This isn't an entirely bad trend, although there a few firms that might go overboard.

(1) If your job can be done by someone who doesn't have a U.S. law degree or native fluency in English, how secure is your job?

(2) Firms don't do a good job of leveraging their work product. If they did, the Indian drones might not be needed. If our firm indexed the organization's work product, I could locate similar cases and save some hours for my client.

The reason (2) hasn't happened is because the incentives created by the billable hour are antithetical to it. I'm not saying the billable hour is going to die, I'm saying if it did, firms have HUGE incentive to not duplicate their work.

This isn't entirely bad news for associates. Granted, I haven't graduated yet, but I have worked as a technology specialist/patent agent before. I would be more than comfortable with a $90k - $110k salary and less grunt work. The more time I have for building my skills and networking, the better.

p.s: As a follow up on (1), if this can be done ESLs without a U.S. law degree, this can be done by U.S. workers who don't have law degrees either. Firms need to figure out how to better leverage their work product, or someone else will.

(65 here again) and it's a major waste of resources to say, okay, i'll pay them 1/10 of what i'd pay an associate to roll the dice and maybe get 1/2 to 2/3 of the value substantively that an associate trained here would provide. Also note that an associate trained here only offers some percentage of value that partners offer by virtue of experience. So if I were corporate counsel, I would be exceedingly concerned that the firm I hire outsources to a place like India. To be more succinct, it's like buying Payless shoes--for the most part, not worth the $10 that was paid, because instead of throwing the $10 shoes away in two weeks, for $60, you can get a pair that goes the distance (lasts a couple years) and that overall adds substantially more value.

68 - Yes, stop reading ATL. Kthxbai.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that it's 2006 again, go right ahead. But some of us actually want to know what's going on in the profession, good or bad.

If this brings a contraction of the legal industry in the United States, we could retrain attorneys and move them into more productive fields.

You lawyers have no idea of the level of Schadenfreude we scientists and engineers have at seeing your work being outsourced. Gasp! How dare they?

Just ended up here from the NYTimes article re White & Case. Such pathetic misery for a mere 10% reduction in workforce. What a bunch of pansies! Come back when your bonus has been completely eliminated, your pay has been cut 20%, you've gone through the third round of bloodletting, and there are half as many of you as you used to be.

You go to law school for what - three years? THREE years, and you expect six figures out of the box? HA!

Face it, you are a COMMODITY, to be bought, sold, traded and outsourced just like all the engineers and technicians you so love to look down your noses at - you know, the ones who actually took hard classes like second quantization, not wussy stuff like Civ Pro.

I'm positively GLEEFUL!!!!

65 again. Mark my words, we'll be reading about this trend having been a reeeeeaaaaaaalllllly bad idea in the NY Times in a couple of years. I called camoflage and the 80s being "in" and this one is a no-brainer. It cannot succeed long-term unless, as I said before, these people learn English spectacularly well.

75 is actually a bored 2nd year dla piper associate.

"If the client has a problem with work performed by Manthan, then Manthan can make the client whole with the help of its E&O insurance."

I am sure that this approach is sustainable.

Here is an idea for India and other third world countries. Be exceptional, and you will not waste time thinking of ways to be a parasite.

DEY TUK ER JERBS!

78, 79, right on. Law is not like the binary engineering world. And the fact that Potnis thinks that evaluating a Title VII case is grunt work to be outsourced just shows the pedestrian nature of his overall analysis. I guess all there is to say is E & O insurers beware.... And on that note, I wonder who underwrites them because this all sounds very very risky to me.

HA HA HA All you D-bags were ripping on the temp attorneys when they started outsourcing doc review. You called doc review chimp work, and if you can't land a real law gig you deserve to be outsourced...Now the biglaw boys are getting it too. Better jump on the boat to oversee litigation attorneys in Mubai! Ha! I love it. Maybe the its time for a change of rules now that it hits the big boys huh?

To Partner Emeritus,

Ok so you outsource all of your former associate business to India. Eight years later, you have no one that is able to move up to the rank of partner.

In addition, you have no one supporting your pension plan. So then what?

There's a time and a place for everything, including Indian outsourcing.

Many of the commenters have focused on the supposedly inferior work ethic, poor language skills, etc. of Indian lawyers. But anybody who has worked extensively with outsourcing companies can tell you that there are great talent disparities among them. There's no reason not to use a company that uses rigorous screening practices and hence hires only quality people. The challenge to US law firms and corporations is to determine which outsourcing firms
are of high quality.

Other commenters seem to imply that clients are going to use Indian outsourcing firms to the exclusion of American associates. A much more likely practice is that clients will view outsourcing as a way to benefit from the expertise of Biglaw partners and senior associates in more run-of-the-mill matters (whereas now they often don't bring that matter to Biglaw at all, because they dread paying $350 an hour for junior bag-carriers).

And in bet-the-company cases, where 10, 15, 20 associates might be assigned, you could lop off 5 of those slots and use competent Indian lawyers instead. There will still be lots of supervision from all those other US lawyers -- but the bills to the client can be significantly reduced.

Again, outsourcing is not a magic solution to every problem. But properly used, it can be a very useful tool.

59, I guess I agree, but you don't see much of that going on right now. Clients using major firms today can use small firms today for a half or a third of the cost. Why don't they? Because they want the quality and certainty that the large firms deliver. If large firms can manage legal outsourcing in order to maintain the quality, then legal outsourcing should blossom. In my experience, even using sophisticated local counsel around the world (the best firms!) leads to a drop in quality and responsiveness.

If legal work is cookie-cutter work, then clients shouldn't be paying big firms to do it anyway. If a large firm's practice is based on cookie-cutter work, they're in trouble either way - they're probably losing clients to small firms in the states already. But woe is the client who tries to do sophisticated stuff at a small law firm or in India, but it will be interesting to see the first major screw-up related to legal outsourcing.

ABA -- Shut down half of the law schools in the country right now.

Not so funny now that it is not just doc review huh? Time to change the rules. People are traveling to India to get surgery too, problem is, with law and medicine, who do I sue when it all goes terribly wrong? What is a Mubai professional malpractice settlement look like? $10,000 max? If one of my clients wants me to outsource my work to India, I suggest they hire the Indian firm directly, I'm not lending my practice to an entity that is judgment proof.

The ship be sinking...

75 -

If you took "second quantization" and you're reading ATL, you're a failure at life, i.e. you're clearly not a physics prof. at Berkeley and instead went to law school. The difference between physics and law is that one you can get paid to do if you're mediocre, but the other you can't get paid to do even if you're fantastic. The market for people with such skills is tiny, while the market for people who took Civ Pro is huge. Sorry, you should have taken econ instead of looking for bosons.

63, the junior associate can still do that work and receive that training; the difference is that the client won't have to pay for it. it works out better for the junior associate, who now has time to receive actual training and participate in more aspect sof the work and client relationship b/c his participation is providing (curent and future) value to the client, rather than simply padding the bill with make-work. he can attend a client meeting, or a deposition, or a hearing, and--GASP--learn something, b/c the client isn't paying for it.

Thank you, Michael Ray Richardson, for inserting your trite, enraging, moronic, idiotic chatter to this serious string of comments.

Is anyone else here wondering what keeps this guy ticking to unfailingly post this same garbage comment "The ship be sinking..."????????????????????????????????????

I love that when this outsourcing fails, the planned backstop is an E&O claim....which will ultimately be liitgated....which will ultimately produce more work for lawyers.

The circle remains unbroken!!!

Seriously, though, the posters pointing to the enormous E&O risks inherent in this plan are onto something. It's not Manthan's E&O carrier that's the issue, though. It's US firms' malpractice insurers. After the first Manthan disaster, I will guarantee firms' premiums will skyrocket. After the second, they'll increase exponentially. After the third, whatever firms have "saved" by outsourcing, they'll have lost to malpractice insurers. And once one or two of these malpractice claims hit the media, firms' clients will begin to cry malpractice for all manner of ills that can possibly be tracked to outsourcing.

This is a great model for malpractice insurers (let's face it, insurers always make $$$) and for malpractice lawyers (what potential juror hasn't already had several crappy experiences with an outsourced helpline).

The fear mongering around here is out of control. All of the profit analysis overlooks the fact that firms can just cut junior associate salaries to reflect a lower billing rate.

63 is on the right track in saying that certain extremely low level work can be outsourced to quality people at a profit and without detriment to the firm.

32 ahas a very good point. A friend and I who grew up together did a very crude analysis of current house cost to annual salary (ours) vs. house cost to annual salary of our parents 25-30 years ago. His mother and fiancee both have/had the same profession. His mother's first house was 3 times her annual salary and he is looking at houses 7-8 times his fiancee's annual salary.

On the male side, the same houses he is looking at are 5 times his annual salary compared to his fathers first house that was 1.5-2 times his annual salary. They both have/had the same profession.

Thoughts?

Addition to the above post: the houses are comprable upper middle class houses

48- Yes, I actually outsource this kind of work to the third world quite frequently whenever I vacation. Highly recommend it.

Mere outsourcing only provides half the benefits we could attain via another solution: issue immigration visas to educated and well-spoken young Indians to come here and practice law. To the extent that many of them already have a degree in higher education, they can finish with a one or two year J.D. program and then take the bar in the relevant state.

This proposal has many advantages:

1. Imports cheaper labor
2. Boosts demand for housing to support real estate prices in the United States
3. Allows for greater regulation of these attorneys (compared to if they remained in India)
4. Ultimately, makes legal services more affordable to Americans while addressing concerns about quality and ... stimulating the economy.

Partial outsourcing only works where the client (be it a law firm or in-house counsel) delegates and manages the tasks well. You need quality control and efficient management. The problem with law firms is that big firm partners can't manage or delegate for shit. Good luck managing these litigation cases.

I don't like outsourcing, and have concerns about different standards of e.g. privacy/trade secret/confidentiality/privilege protection involving transmission of data between countries.

That aside, just because I don't like something doesn't mean I make ridiculous arguments. Many firms have for years, without much if any controversy, employed non-lawyers (foreign law degree, not yet called, etc.) to do e.g. document review -- so long as there is adequate supervision and an attorney reviews/takes responsibility for/whatever the final product is and the client understands and agrees with the procedure there's generally no ethical problem ("Dear client, our professional legal opinion is that you should produce these 300,000 documents but that these 100,000 are privileged and these 600,000 are not relevant).

I do have concerns about some billing models for what is really tantamount to a disbursement, but that's a separate ethical matter.

If I as a lawyer have a paralegal do a first draft of something and then work on it myself, I've saved time and the client money and done nothing wrong. Nothing ethically different with outsourcing to India (barring issues regarding inadequate supervision or insecure data, which are genuine concerns). For that matter, until a newly hired "associate" is admitted to the relevant state bar, he or she is a non-lawyer acting under the supervision of attorneys...

I agree with the points made in 96. Why send money abroad, when we can bring the talent here? The existence H1B immigration visa quota demonstrates there is a need for additional legal talent in the United States. If we are thinking about outsourcing, why not instead just facilitate the immigration of more attorneys, potential attorneys, and paralegals: increase the H1B quota, facilitate enrollment in U.S. law schools (and paralegal feeders), and ease restrictions on foreign graduates finding job placements post-graduation.

----> lower cost of providing legal services; possibly higher home problems; influx of immigrant work ethic; greater regulatory oversight; keep fee income here in the United States, where it can trickle down into other areas of the economy.

Correction to 99: Benefits include possibly higher home prices, not "problems."

99, people in the tech industry hate tech outsourcing to India, but they really really hate tech people here on H1B visas. Read any tech blog.

101,

Is that a good reason to restrict immigration?

98 you've got it wrong. Or perhaps I may just be a much better lawyer than I thought. First, there is no way paralegal work is akin to even unadmitted lawyer work. It's not. That's not to say there aren't bad associates and bad young lawyers out there generally because there are, but setting aside that relatively small group, even brand new unadmitted lawyers are highly skilled compared to paralegals. As for the supervision component, saying it's okay as long as there is adequate supervision is basically relying on an unreliable contingency. Things WILL fall through the cracks because people are busy. Only difference is now the work is primarily being done by highly trained, really scared associates who will make sure to get it right, as opposed to people with questionable training and language skills who simply are unlikely to understand nuances attendant to language and the law.

98 you've got it wrong. Or perhaps I may just be a much better lawyer than I thought. First, there is no way paralegal work is akin to even unadmitted lawyer work. It's not. That's not to say there aren't bad associates and bad young lawyers out there generally because there are, but setting aside that relatively small group, even brand new unadmitted lawyers are highly skilled compared to paralegals. As for the supervision component, saying it's okay as long as there is adequate supervision is basically relying on an unreliable contingency. Things WILL fall through the cracks because people are busy. Only difference is now the work is primarily being done by highly trained, really scared associates who will make sure to get it right, as opposed to people with questionable training and language skills who simply are unlikely to understand nuances attendant to language and the law.

In the end, only time will tell and the way that business looks for firms right now, they will likely do the outsourcing, but there WILL be pain as a result, and that pain will be felt by firms and their clients when malpractice claims start running rampant. And this kind of outsourcing simply cannot be compared to outsourcing to contract lawyers here in the US. This is a different animal altogther that I feel certain will have some pretty catastrophic consequences. Anyway, I am starting to feel like one of those people who saw the whole financial crisis coming when no one was listening. It's futile to continue this discussion, but I look forward to seeing what happens.

PE, WTF are you still doing here. You're a rising 2L and you know shit. You made light of a suicide. GTFO.

re 89: "If you took "second quantization" and you're reading ATL, you're a failure at life"

Ha. I never cease to be amazed by the brilliant Bayesian inductive reasoning of the typical JD.

Tell you what, when you find yourself hard-up to get that 2500 billable by the end of the year, here's a hint: You're pulling another all-nighter not because you're a kick a$$ hard worker but because you slacked off on the net all day reading ATL &c.

Love the quote BTW since it so well illustrates the snobbery that fuels my joy at seeing you all lose jobs.

How does it feel to come to the realization that you are not the elite and powerful; that in fact the real elite and powerful duped you into thinking you were one of them so that they could take advantage of you? All those nights spent sleeping on the cots the firm provided you - that was really just them screwing you, getting as much utility as they could before laying you off or sending your lousy job to India?

Again, you are a commodity, pure and simple. The only obstacle to the complete commoditization of legal work is the legal requirement of a law license for legal representation/advice, combined with the restriction that to pass the bar you need to have a law degree from an accredited US law school. But for that, and you would be like Dickens, billing a few pence per word.

But you see, the people at the top don't love you. They pretend they do at those office parties, perhaps, but they don't really. Already they are putting dents in that little shield that keeps the hordes at bay. Soon enough and you will effectively have Samir from Lahore practicing US law, earning $20K a year, and loving it.

Law is not rocket science. Even an English major can do it.

Sorry, there is not a single other argument presented here that could not or has not been made for every other job that has been outsourced.

Face it. You are not special. Sorry.

105 - That's why the better policy is just to expand the H1B immigration visa quota and loosen work restrictions on foreign graduates of U.S. educationa institutions. There are plenty of educated Indian persons willing to immigrate here. Keeping the work here in the United States but increasing the labor pool will help drive down labor costs (although admittedly not as much as via pure outsourcing) while addressing many of the quality issues you seem to be alluding to.

107, I ask this in earnest. I am considering changing careers from law. You indicate you are a scientist or engineer. Can you recommend any areas of study in those fields? How long would it take to develop expertise? What is your particular line of work?

Thank you

As a member of the Florida Bar's Ethics Committee, offshoring legal work raises serious ethical issues.

For what it is worth, we have recently opined on these ethical concerns which might dampen some of the enthusiasm expressed about offshoring legal services. Here is the opinion:

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OF THE FLORIDA BAR
OPINION 07-2
January 18, 2008

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging the services of an overseas provider to provide paralegal assistance as long as the lawyer adequately addresses ethical obligations relating to assisting the unlicensed practice of law, supervision of nonlawyers, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and billing. The lawyer should be mindful of any obligations under law regarding disclosure of sensitive information of opposing parties and third parties.

Note: This opinion was approved by The Florida Bar Board of Governors on July 25, 2008.

RPC: 4-1.6, 4-5.3, 4-5.5,
OPINIONS: 68-49, 73-41, 76-33, 76-38, 88-6, 88-12, 89-5; Los Angeles County Bar Association 518, City of New York Bar Association 2006-3
CASES: Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1980); Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962)

A member of the Florida Bar has inquired whether a law firm may ethically outsource legal work to overseas attorneys or paralegals. The overseas attorneys, who are not admitted to the Florida Bar, would do work including document preparation, for the creation of business entities, business closings and immigration forms and letters. Paralegals, who are not foreign attorneys, would transcribe dictation tapes. The foreign attorneys and paralegals would have remote access to the firm’s computer files and may contact the clients to obtain information needed to complete a form. In addition to the facts presented in the written inquiry, the Committee was advised that the outsourcing company employs lawyers admitted to practice in India who are capable of providing much broader assistance to law firms in the U.S. besides outsourcing merely paralegal work, including contract drafting, litigation support, legal research, and forms preparation. The details of the proposed activity are complex, and a number of issues are potentially involved.

The inquiry raises ethical concerns regarding the unauthorized practice of law, supervision of nonlawyers, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and billing.

Law firms frequently hire contract paralegals to perform services such as legal research and document preparation. It is the committee’s opinion that there is no ethical distinction when hiring an overseas provider of such services versus a local provider, and that contracting for such services does not constitute aiding the unlicensed practice of law, provided that there is adequate supervision by the law firm.

Rule 4-5.5, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, prohibits an attorney from assisting in the unlicensed practice of law. In Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587, 591 (Fla. 1962), judg. vacated on other grounds, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) the Court found that setting forth a broad definition of the practice of law was "nigh onto impossible" and instead developed the following test to determine whether an activity is the practice of law:

. . .if the giving of [the] advice and performance of [the] services affect important rights of a person under the law, and if the reasonable protection of the rights and property of those advised and served requires that the persons giving such advice possess legal skill and a knowledge of the law greater than that possessed by the average citizen, then the giving of such advice and the performance of such services by one for another as a course of conduct constitute the practice of law.

When applying this test it should be kept in mind that “the single most important concern in the Court's defining and regulating the practice of law is the protection of the public from incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible representation.” Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 417 (Fla. 1980). The Committee is not authorized to make the determination whether or not the proposed activities constitute the unlicensed practice of law. It is the obligation of the attorney to determine whether activities (legal work) being undertaken or assigned to others might violate Rule 4-5.5 and any applicable rule of law.

Rule 4-5.3, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, requires an attorney to directly supervise nonlawyers who are employed or retained by the attorney. The rule also requires that the attorney make reasonable efforts to ensure that the nonlawyers’ conduct is consistent with the ethics rules. This is required regardless of whether the overseas provider is an attorney or a lay paralegal. The comment to the rule states:

A lawyer must give such assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their employment, particularly regarding the obligation not to disclose information relating to representation of the client. The measures employed in supervising nonlawyers should take account of the level of their legal training and the fact that they are not subject to professional discipline. If an activity requires the independent judgment and participation of the lawyer, it cannot be properly delegated to a nonlawyer employee.

Additionally, Florida Ethics Opinions 88-6 and 89-5 provide that nonlawyers (defined as persons who are not members of The Florida Bar) may accomplish certain activities but only under the "supervision" of a Florida lawyer.
In Florida Opinion 88-6, which discusses initial interviews that are conducted by nonlawyers, this committee advised that:

the lawyer is responsible for careful, direct supervision of nonlawyer employees and must make certain that (1) they clearly identify their nonlawyer status to prospective clients, (2) they are used for the purpose of obtaining only factual information from prospective clients, and (3) they give no legal advice concerning the case itself or the representation agreement. Any questions concerning an assessment of the case, the applicable law or the representation agreement would have to be answered by the lawyer.

Florida Ethics Opinion 89-5 provides that a law firm may permit a paralegal or other trained employee to handle a real estate closing at which no lawyer in the firm is present if the following conditions are met:

A lawyer supervises and reviews all work done up to the closing;

The supervising lawyer determines that handling or attending the closing will be no more than a ministerial act. Handling the closing will constitute a ministerial act only if the supervising lawyer determines that the client understands the closing documents in advance of the closing;

The clients consent to the closing being handled by a nonlawyer employee of the firm. This requires that written disclosure be made to the clients that the person who will handle or attend the closing is a nonlawyer and will not be able to give legal advice at the closing;

The supervising lawyer is readily available, in person or by telephone, to provide legal advice or answer legal questions should the need arise;

The nonlawyer employee will not give legal advice at the closing or make impromptu decisions that should be made by the supervising lawyer.

The committee has specifically addressed the employment of law school graduates who are admitted in other jurisdictions in Florida Opinions 73-41 and 68-49. These opinions state that a law firm may employ attorneys who are not admitted to the Florida Bar only for work that does not constitute the practice of law.

Attorneys who use overseas legal outsourcing companies should recognize that providing adequate supervision may be difficult when dealing with employees who are in a different country. Ethics opinions from other states indicate that an attorney may need to take extra steps to ensure that the foreign employees are familiar with Florida’s ethics rules governing conflicts of interest and confidentiality. See Los Angeles County Bar Association Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee Opinion 518 and Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics Formal Opinion 2006-3. This committee agrees with the conclusion of Los Angeles County Bar Association Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee Opinion 518, which states that a lawyer's obligation regarding conflicts of interest is as follows:

[T]he attorney should satisfy himself that no conflicts exist that would preclude the representation. [Cite omitted.] The attorney must also recognize that he or she could be held responsible for any conflict of interest that may be created by the hiring of Company and which could arise from relationships that Company develops with others during the attorney's relationship with Company.

Of particular concern is the ethical obligation of confidentiality. The inquirer states that the foreign attorneys will have remote access to the firm’s computer files. The committee believes that the law firm should instead limit the overseas provider's access to only the information necessary to complete the work for the particular client. The law firm should provide no access to information about other clients of the firm. The law firm should take steps such as those recommended by The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics Opinion 2006-3 to include “contractual provisions addressing confidentiality and remedies in the event of breach, and periodic reminders regarding confidentiality.”

The requirement for informed consent from a client should be generally commensurate with the degree of risk involved in the contemplated activity for which such consent is sought. It is assumed that most information outsourced will be transmitted electronically to the legal service provider. If so, an attorney must be mindful of, and receive appropriate and sufficient assurances relative to, the risks inherent to transmittal of information containing confidential information. For example, assurances by the foreign provider that policies and processes are employed to protect the data while in transit, at rest, in use, and post-provision of services should be set forth in sufficient detail for the requesting attorney. Moreover, foreign data-breach and identity protection laws and remedies, where such exist at all, may differ substantially in both scope and coverage from U.S. Federal and State laws and regulations. In light of such differing rules and regulations, an attorney should require sufficient and specific assurances (together with an outline of relevant policies and processes) that the data, once used for the service requested, will be irretrievably destroyed, and not sold, used, or otherwise be capable of access after the provision of the contracted-for service. While the foregoing issues are likewise applicable to domestic service providers, they present a heightened supervisory and auditability concern in foreign (i.e., non-U.S.) jurisdictions, and should be accorded heightened scrutiny by the attorney seeking to use such services. See, Indian data breach hits HSBC - 28 Jun 2006 - IT Week www.itweek.co.uk/itweek/news/2159326/indian-breach-hits-hsbc, UK banks escape punishment over India data breach, www.services.silicon.com/offshoring/0,3800004877,39155588,00.htm, Indian call center under suspicion of ID breach, Cnet.com 2005-08-16 http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-5835103.html, Florida State Data Breach Result of Inappropriate Offshoring to India, About.com 2006-04-1, http://idtheft.about.com/b/a/256546.htm, Outsourcing to India: Dealing with Data Theft and Misuse, Morrison & Foerster White Paper November 2006, http://www.mofo.com/news/updates/files/update02268.html. U.S. Firm Says Outsourcer Holding Its Data Hostage, Paul McDougall, Information Week, August 7, 2007: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201204202

The committee believes that the law firm should obtain prior client consent to disclose information that the firm reasonably believes is necessary to serve the client’s interests. Rule 4-1.6 (c)(1), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. In determining whether a client should be informed of the participation of the overseas provider an attorney should bear in mind factors such as whether a client would reasonably expect the lawyer or law firm to personally handle the matter and whether the non-lawyers will have more than a limited role in the provision of the services. For example, in Opinion 88-12, we stated that a law firm’s use of a temporary lawyer may need to be disclosed to a client if the client would likely consider the information to be material.

In addition to concerns regarding the confidentiality of client information, there are concerns about disclosure of sensitive information of others, such as an opposing party or third party. In outsourcing, there is the possibility that information of others will be disclosed in addition to the disclosure of client information. Lawyers should be mindful of any obligations under law regarding disclosure of sensitive information of opposing parties and third parties, particularly where the information concerns medical records or financial information.

Additionally, in Consolidated Opinion 76-33 and 76-38, regarding billing for nonlawyer personnel, the committee stated:

[T]he lawyer should not in fact or effect duplicate charges for services of nonlawyer personnel, and if those charges are separately itemized, the salaries of such personnel employed by the lawyer should in some reasonable fashion be excluded from consideration as an overhead element in fixing the lawyer's own fee. If that exclusion cannot, as a practical matter, be accomplished in some rational and reasonably accurate fashion, then the charges for nonlawyer time should be credited against the lawyer's own fee.

As to whether knowledge and specific advance consent of the client as to such uses of nonlawyer personnel, and charges therefor, are necessary, the Committee majority feels that it is in some instances and is not in others. For example, it would not seem appropriate for a lawyer to always have to seek the consent of the client as to use of a law clerk in conducting legal research. And under EC 3-6 and DR 3-104 the work delegated to nonlawyer personnel should be so much under the lawyer's supervision and ultimately merged into the lawyer's own product that the work will be, in effect, that of the lawyer himself, who presumably has entered into a "clear agreement with his client as to the basis of the fee charges to be made." EC 2-19. However, we feel that such "clear agreement" could not exist in many situations where the lawyer intends to make substantial use of nonlawyer personnel, and to bill directly or indirectly therefor, unless the client is informed of that intention at the time the fee agreement is entered into.

Therefore, if there is a potentiality of dispute with, or of lack of clear agreement with and understanding by, the client as to the basis of the lawyer's charges, including the foregoing elements of nonlawyer time, whether or not the nonlawyer personnel time is to be separately itemized, the lawyer's intention to so use nonlawyer personnel and charge directly or indirectly therefor should be discussed in advance with, and approved by, the client. This would seem especially the case where substantial use is to be made of any kind of such nonlawyer services. See also EC 2-19 as to explaining to clients the reasons for particular fee arrangements proposed.

The Committee suggests that the potentiality of such dispute or lack of clear agreement and understanding referred to in the foregoing paragraph may exist in the case of work to be done by nonlawyer personnel who are employed by the lawyer and who perform services of a type known by the lay public to be regularly available through independent contractors, e.g., investigators. The Committee feels that such potentiality especially may exist where the lawyer enters into a contingent fee arrangement with the client and then separately itemizes charges to the client for the time of nonlawyer personnel who are full-time employees of the lawyer; the arrangement may be susceptible of interpretation as involving charging the client for such nonlawyer services and at the same time, in fact or effect, duplicating the charges by including the salaries of such personnel as overhead and an element of the lawyer's own fee, as proscribed hereinabove.

The law firm may charge a client the actual cost of the overseas provider, unless the charge would normally be covered as overhead. However, in a contingent fee case, it would be improper to charge separately for work that is usually otherwise accomplished by a client’s own attorney and incorporated into the standard fee paid to the attorney, even if that cost is paid to a third party provider.

In sum, a lawyer is not prohibited from engaging the services of an overseas provider, as long as the lawyer adequately addresses the above ethical obligations.

Some interesting points made here about the merits of insourcing (i.e., immigration) versus outsourcing.

I concur that INsourcing has much to recommend it. It may be possible to impose restrictions on firms and clients to prohibit outsourcing. But even if that weren't possible, expanding the labor pool via immigration would clearly reduce incentives to outsource because it would help reduce the cost of labor within the United States. Like immigrants from Latin America, immigrants from the Indian subcontinent may have lower cost structures to manage than typical American workers. By this, I mean that they may be working to support family that reside in India, where the cost of living is lower. They obviously at least have lower cost reference points. Whatever the reason, it is reported that immigrants from Latin America are often willing to work for less than U.S. workers.

Even if the cost structures were the same, the mere fact of an increase in labor supply could help reduce the price of labor to firms.

So, while we may not be able to prevent outsourcing of legal work in its entirety, insourcing legal talent would certainly be a countervailing force against it and help keep the jobs here in the United States.

107 - Any job that doesn't require being physically present at the work site can be outsourced. That most likely includes yours, so don't be too smug about it.

Most of our economy is based on knowledge enterprises or whatever buzz phrase you prefer, so we're all pretty much screwed. Knowledge = 0s and 1s, don't let the fiber-optic cable hit your ass on the way out the door.

It looks like what we really need to do is expand the H1B immigrant work visa program to allow more foreign workers to come over.

112: Currently my job can't be outsourced because there quite simply are very precious few Chinese/Indian scientists with my level of expertise. On the sci/tech side, US firms are now realizing that there's precious little paydirt left to hit in Chindia if you are looking for top quality. Plus, outsourcing to a country that doesn't have any respect for IP law isn't really a good idea if you're an engineering firm; that's another lesson that Silicon Valley (e.g.) is learning these days.

There is plenty of other engineering work at my firm that HAS been outsourced to China and India, mind you. Legal's been outsourced (here meaning contracted with outside US firms, not chindian firms) as well.

109: Honestly, I don't recommend engineering. I'm a scientist, not an engineer, but doing anything sci/tech related involves many many years of getting up to speed. Even if you COULD get into a Master's program somewhere (only possible if you already have a BA/BS in relevant field), once you graduated, you'd be lucky to find a job paying $60-$70k or so. PhD (my choice) is never worth it from a purely monetary standpoint.

Despite my nastiness the truth is I really feel for the lawyers who aren't a-holes. It's a miserable job. Looooong hours and a brutal work environment. Really good, inspiring work to be found if you don't mind working for peanuts; churn & burn otherwise. You have to have a passion for it, otherwise it's not worth any amount of money they throw at you.

Re outsourcing in general: personally I make far less money and have far fewer job prospects than I otherwise would thanks to the outsourcing of jobs lower down the totem pole.

The top is adversely affected by outsourcing - indirectly, even if not directly.

Something for partners at law firms to bear in mind.

I fail to see the point of insourcing (via immigration of Indian attorneys), or how it will save money, except that presumably these immigrants don't have the six figure law school debt. They still have to live here, with the US cost of living (unless you expect them to live in a dormitory with bunkbeds).

Its not as if the US doesn't already have a ton of unemployed attorneys, many of who would gladly accept employment for less than $100,000, or even 2/3 (or 1/2) of that in many states. If one is going to "outsource" to India, why not just "outsource" to Nebraska? At least then you have some better belief that the attorneys will understand English nuances.

If perhaps there can be some way to reduce law school tuition to something reasonable, that doesn't produce six figure crushing debt, maybe there wouldn't be a need to outsource and firms can simply hire American attorneys for their actual, rather than inflated value.

103/4 I may have been a bit unclear. I wasn't suggesting it would be smart or wise to do that, I was suggesting it would not be unethical IF supervision/review is adequate (which I question) anymore than it is unethical to have a non-lawyer perform initial review of documents domestically.

With the exception of states allowing e.g. student practice, legally a non-lawyer is a non-lawyer whether a graduate of HYS or [insert name of foreign law school here]. Ethically the degree of required supervision may be different, but that's a different issue. Indeed, I've spoken to some "elite" law school graduates who had such an inflated opinion of their self-worth that they were unwilling to do a minimally competent job of document review because it was "beneath them". Many non-lawyers might have done a better job because they cared more and had less of an attitude.

If a fraction of what I've read about some document reviews performed in e.g. New York on blogs etc. is true, there are already big ethical and legal problems with the so-called "supervision" of people who even if admitted to the bar seem to have no problem with defrauding the client for not working (the reviewers, agencies, and law firms reportedly just want the numbers to be good). I doubt that an LPO would be worse than that. If the domestic situation is accepted, as so far it is (and wrongly in my view), I can't see the offshore option as being significantly worse.

I get annoyed, pissed off even, when I call my phone company and get someone who can't understand or speak english. Can you imagine calling your attorney and getting offered an orange squishy? Thank you, come again!

Here's what clients are in for:
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/kzzbrvqnfp--Don%27t-understandThe-Simpsons-Hank-Azaria-Apu-

Its amazing to read the truly stupid comments made here. Fine, you want to outsource (or insource) attorney positions then you better, a. lower the standards of a US legal education, b. lower the COSTS of a US education (you know the one where everyone gets paid off - banks, govt, corps, law partners, schools - except the law student), c. lower the standards of entry to do legal practice here in the US, and d. make the ABA do all of these things.

You can not have it both ways - have high barriers and costs to practice law here in the US while outsourcing the practice to foreign attys who dont bear these costs. One or the other - pick.
Oh wait, you can? Thats right, I keep forgetting what spineless, selfish, hypocritical, unethical toads we have at the top of our field.

114, 109 here. Thanks for the feedback, which I am considering. You haven't quite dissuaded me yet. How many years does it take to "get up to speed" to be a competent engineer or scientist? Does one already have something to offer after a two-year Master's Program, plus whatever undergrad prereqs I would need?

These fields have an appeal for several reasons: Work that is possibly more interesting substantively (and that I may have a greater aptitude for); Greater job security (lower upside, but possibly more inherent usefulness). I could be wrong about these reasons.

Any further input is welcome.

Step 1: Steal underpants.
Step 2....
Step 3: Profit

"The market change that we are now seeing "is 99% being driven by customers."

Um, what fucking world is this guy living in that he makes that statement and then turns around and argues that Biglaw can get junior associate work done in India at 15% of the price and then turn around and bill the client full price. Yeah, that will really make the customers happy...

Oh, and another thing. Has anyone ever worked with Indian lawyers? Please... In quality terms Big law would be just as well of "in-sourcing" and hiring some of the people in the US that their stellar standards previously excluded, and probably pay them at the same pay scale as the indian "attorneys". Honestly, you will probably get the same quality of work, if not higher, for the same price, because you aren't busy stuffing our buddy Potnis' pocket.

Oh, and ABA, fuck you for even thinking this is okay.

120, I'm not 114, but my background isn't too far off from what they describe as theirs. (I've got a PhD in physics and I'm in industry now, but I'm Wonder Bread, not Chindian.) I generally don't want to dissuade you from switching to Eng/Sci, but I want to caution you against thinking the grass is uniformly greener on this side.

The work that you claim is possibly more "interesting substantively" isn't - not that science & engineering are inherently boring or useless, but rather that "science & engineering" encompass such a wide range of subjects in such a diversity of settings that it would be disingenuous to try to describe the fields with any single set of adjectives. Nuclear physics is different than aerospace engineering is different than biochemistry. Some fields are far more active than others presently, but even the hottest field is going to be boring as hell if you just don't give a shit about the topic or scope. To me, nonacademic engineering is boring. Work at a big firm is more boring than at a small firm, with projects that are less innovative. Academic research is more interesting, but maybe less relevant. The nature of the work you'd do is largely a function of the subject you choose, obviously. (And you really should think about that. A lot.)

Job security in Eng/Sci may be relatively greater than in contemporary Biglaw, but it's not necessarily that great: tenured professors have it, but postdocs & junior faculty not so much; many firms are laying people off or doing VRIFs, and even the huge A&D firms (>100,000 emp.) are canning folks. Your job security is a function of how necessary you are to a program or practice area, and how necessary that work is to the firm. Strikes me as similar to a law firm. No guarantee you won't get fired, but it isn't likely to happen within your first two or three years, unless you pound someone in the ass.

With regard to getting up to speed: it all depends on you. If you don't have a degree in a hard science or engineering, you're going to have to get one. If you can get into a masters program (~2 yr), do it and you'll have a decent shot at decent work at an engineering firm. If you want to do real, honest-to-god research in acadème or one of the few engineering firms that actually perform honest-to-god research, it'll be hard to do it and have any sense of job security without a PhD. That time-frame depends on the subject matter and you, but it's definitely going to be longer than law school (4-8 yr). And your pay will take a hit, assuming you're going from Biglaw. It could well be worth it to you.

I'll offer one piece of bald-faced dissuasion: if you appreciate people with good grooming habits and who don't pad around the cube farm in their socks, you should consider staying where you are. If not, I hate you. If you switch to science, don't let yourself go.

Post the subject matter you're interested in, and maybe 114 and I can direct you better. Heck if I care if this is a "law blog."

Guest

The idea of bringing foreign attorneys here is, um, STUPID. 13K lawyers passed the NY bar last summer. You think we need to import lawyers like we need a hole in the head.

The idea of bringing foreign attorneys here is, um, STUPID. 13K lawyers passed the NY bar last summer. I think we need to import lawyers like we need a hole in the head.

All will be well.

The Market will provide.

I worked for a firm that charged a flat rate and outsourced much of the work to Panama. It was simple real-estate transactional stuff, but anytime we hit a glitch we would have to get approval from the client to bill x amount of hours at x an hour. It was a pain in the ass. Most of the client's didn't know we outsourced and one of them was furious when they found out and stopped using the firm. My question is, do client's reallllly want their legal work shipped to a country like Panama? I don't think so

Isn't Tarbosh/aka Rudy- UVA law part of the outsourcing problem?

Interesting discussion and understandable why many lawyers might feel threatened by this trend. Since it is already happening and being done successfully by some very prominent firms, maybe it's time to think about how to use LPO to your advantage. Here are some articles/blog posts I've written on the subject: http://themiddleoffice.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/outsourcing-and-the-death-tax/ , http://www.counseltocounsel.com/mlw3-2-09.pdf , http://themiddleoffice.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/why-protectionism-is-bad-for-our-economy/ , http://themiddleoffice.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/u-s-jingoism-from-an-indian-ex-pat/ and I suspect I'll be writing more in the near future.

39, 45, 69 - You're either joking, or have never read a newspaper or an economics text.

Please be joking. Because you make me sad.

39, 45, 69 - You're either joking, or have never read a newspaper or an economics text.

Please be joking. Because you make me sad.

39, 45, 69 - You're either joking, or have never read a newspaper or an economics text.

Please be joking. Because you make me sad.

Has anyone else ever called an outsourced "customer service" company? Do you really think that this is going to work?

Hi, maybe a GC's point of view would help? I care about getting good enough quality at the lowest possible cost... and I don't care whether the work is outsourced or not, I just care that it gets done on time and on budget. And as for quality? That's the firm's problem. If there's a screw up at any point, you're going to have to take responsibility for it, whether it's reducing fees or dusting off your malpractice policy. Presumably you'll cover your own risk by having reciprocal insurance policies with whomever you outsource to, but again that's your problem and not mine. So, my chickadees, get real about what's coming, because it's not pretty. And by the way, I'm not making these decisions out of choice, I'm making them out of necessity... you might give some tiny amount of thought to the reality that as just about every multinational's profits have been ravaged in the current environment, outside counsel fees have become a bulls-eye and budgets have been slashed repeatedly accordingly. This means I have less to pay you, and cost becomes by far the most relevant factor. And you might give some thought as to whether I'll really go to my board and tell them I'm paying substantially higher fees because I prefer to use homegrown lawyers when there is a reasonable alternative... yeah right. Peace.

124/125:

The interest in outsourcing proves there is a need for more lawyers at lower cost. In-sourcing talent from India and China (in the form of immigration) will help satisfy this demand in a way that (i) benefits the U.S. economy, by retaining some of these new foreign attorneys' and paralegals' incomes within the United States and expanding the labor pool of hardworking, motivated immigrants, and (ii) allows for comparatively better regulatory oversight of their work and conduct by U.S. courts and bar associations.

Curbs on immigration are one of the remaining distortions of free market efficiencies in the United States. We need to further expand the H1B work visa program and let clients and the broader market decide whether Chinese and Indian legal talent is "needed" or not.

107/114 is my new hero.

--Someone who is hoping to leave law for academia (in another field)

This whole post is stupid. First, the billable hours model will not change simply by virtue of outsourcing to foreigners who will work at an hourly rate. This merely reinforces the billable hours model. Second, law firms will continue to charge clients the maximum that they believe the clients will pay. Contract attorneys are typically charged at junior associate rates and that will continue for BigLaw firms regardless of whether the contract attorneys are foreign or domestic. Third, I don't know what these foreign lawyers are doing, but associate gruntwork is conducted by a licensed attorney and reviewed by one or more senior attorneys. Turning over some massive part of an associate's daily work to an unlicensed foreign attorney is a bigtime CYA mistake for lawfirms come malpractice time (and potentially an ethics violation for the authorizing attorney).

In any event, there are two types of firms who should really benefit from this: (1) cost leaders (likely very small firms without a significant number of associates) and (2) class action plaintiff firms. The former business model would be employed largely by very small firms with no or very few associates (e.g., a standard "$100 divorce" firm). Obviously this is a far cry from BigLaw, even in a recession (hence layoffs and salary reductions but no reduction in billable rates). The latter business model is an even better fit -- the client has almost no skin in the game and won't sue for malpractice, expenses are not reimbursed by the client and constitute a legitimate downside risk to the firm, and a "win" is to present only enough of an argument to settle well, such that shoddy work may suffice.

This is no game-changer, no matter how much Mr. Dots-Not-Feathers has convinced whomever posted this.

Maybe US asociates should start distcretely outsourcing our own work. Then we could "bill" lots more time. Hell, I'd give up 10K a year to have an extra 20 hours a week of free time.

Maybe US asociates should start distcretely outsourcing our own work. Then we could "bill" lots more time. Hell, I'd give up 10K a year to have an extra 20 hours a week of free time.

One of two things will happen

1. A state bar gets proactive and actually begin to act like the protectionist organizations they were set up to be and this goes away like it should

2. People get burned in litigation - which will eventually happen.

As business that flirted with far flung outsourcing are starting to bring people back into the same building because they saw a decline in quality, law firms are going to start sacrificing quality...just has bad idea written all over it.

In the long run the firms that produce the best product will succeed. Nobody that can afford it really wants legal advice on the cheap.

So, who is proofing/monitoring the outsourced work? Or, is it just flung in as final product with their own stamp of approval?

This must be really tearing alot of client-sensitive partners up knowing that their mighty PPP is hanging in the balance over possibly losing those very same clients due to shoddy, outsourced work.

I know that actual experience with respect to issues discussed on ATL is frowned upon, but I'll add my two cents anyway. As a relatively sr. associate, I've managed offshore lawyers (in several countries) and the majority of you are nuts if you don't believe there is a significant drop-off in quality of work. These projects involved simple contract reviews (not drafting- that just ain't happening) and the results just aren't there.

I'm not putting these lawyers down, as a number of them are very intelligent, but the hand-holding, quality control and re-work is simply too much to bear and presents too many risks to the client.

I should make it clear that I am not simply knocking foreign LPO providers, as contractors here in the U.S. often present similar problems. With that being said, imo, you pay the licensed contract lawer down the street $40 an hour to do an okay job over the unknown quantity in another country for $20 an hour, every day of the week.

You people suggesting we recruit immigrants to become cheap lawyers here in the US kill me.

Has everyone forgotten that companies are supposed to be pay people on temporary work visas the same salaries as they pay their Americans employees?

The purpose of temporary work visas isn't to push Americans out of jobs, drive down wages and exploit the temporary visa holders (or allow the temporary visa holders to game our immigration system), but to fill in gaps in our labor market.

It's sad to see that the various temporary visa programs have been so misused for so long that people have forgotten their original purpose.

Unemployment will reach 10% very soon. We should be focusing on how to keep our fellow Americans employed.

No. 119 is absolutely correct: Can't have it both ways (i.e., no high cost to become and stay an attorney; and then ABA allows the jobs to be outsourced to Third World). Can't someone find some way to sue the ABA for incompetence? malfeasance? breach of implied contract? Hello?

No. 119 is absolutely correct: Can't have it both ways (i.e., no high cost to become and stay an attorney; and then ABA allows the jobs to be outsourced to Third World). Can't someone find some way to sue the ABA for incompetence? malfeasance? breach of implied contract? Hello?

No. 119 is absolutely correct: Can't have it both ways (i.e., no high cost to become and stay an attorney; and then ABA allows the jobs to be outsourced to Third World). Can't someone find some way to sue the ABA for incompetence? malfeasance? breach of implied contract? Hello?

They took ourrrr Jaaabs!!!!

They took ourrrr Jaaabs!!!!

I'm the author of 75, 107, and 114. Figured I might as well get a moniker.

120, I think 123's written a good response to your questions.

My background is physics as well. I've known a few people to make the switch, in both directions.

Some random thoughts in no particular order:

There is no such thing as job security in science unless you have tenure at a university.

Fraction of people who get tenure after their PhD's - er, let's say you graduate from a top-5 school - it's still pretty low. I dunno, but I'd guess 20%-30%, tops. But that's tenure SOMEwhere, not tenure at a good school. Not mentioning fact that about half don't make it to the PhD.

That means, oh, ten years after your PhD (if you really kick butt) you can be earning high sub-six-figures with job security, unless you end up tenured at a top school, where you'll get a "1" as the first digit in you salary but not much else.

I personally don't have any friends who have managed that and I went to a top 10 / top 3 (double) program. They all make much less than that unless they took off for wall street - I do know an electrical engineer on wall street who earns over $400k, but he's a major outlier.

Grad school takes 6+ years on average, during which you will be paid about $20k/yr to spend 20hrs/week teaching undergraduates how to tie their shoes, and doing all the grading so the professor can take his/her afternoon nap in comfort.

Academia has far less job security than industry or national labs, unless you have tenure which case you're golden, as mentioned previously.

Jobs in industry tend to be rather boring; same goes for the people (engineers are the accountants of the science/math/engineering world). Exceptions: work at startups, or work in internal "labs" divisions, which are mini think-tanks (that's where I work). These can be fun places to work and they pay well, meaning $120 to start (in my case). It's not a ton of dough, but the work load is WAY less than at Biglaw. I arrive at work after dropping the kids off at daycare, and I go home at 5.

This is just me being cynical I suppose, but you'd have to have a pretty impressive resume & undergrad curriculum for a top physics school to even consider you for grad school. You can't just start doing physics at the graduate level unless you've got a solid background in, ah, well, four years of solid college math and physics. It's almost unheard of for somebody to major in something besides math or a hardcore physical science (i.e. physics or chemistry) and then go to grad school in physics - you'd be at a serious disadvantage.

But, that's just physics.

The bio fields tend to be a lot easier to enter, I think. Also, here are a lot of multidisciplinary programs out there that are probably much more willing to have a look at somebody with a different background and a good story to tell.

Also, if you are a really driven creative person but don't want to waste your life in grad school (can't blame you), you can get some good undergrad engineering coursework, make sure to make lots of good contacts, and try to find your way into a startup. That's FAR better than working at some huge tech firm where you'll almost certainly be doing something insanely boring. Startups are fun places where people come up with zany ideas and have a blast doing it, and - modulo current economic uncertainty - there's often the possibility of a big cashout when you go public. I know plenty of people in the bay area who bought their houses that way.

Of course another option is to go back and get some undergrad engineering coursework and then try for patent law.

Or, hang up a shingle and start your own law firm. I have at least one friend who's done just that. Makes the work more interesting, I gather.

And here's why I have a hard time feeling sorry for lawyers complaining about outsourcing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

BTW that youtube link is a law firm (Cohen & Grigsby) with their little presentation about how they help clients finagle the H1-B system so that they can CLAIM they have valiantly tried but failed to find qualified US job applicants, to satisfy legal reqs, when in fact the real intent all along was to hire a foreign worker in the first place.

Met two nice guys from India recently who worked at a firm *notorious* for sub-two-year turnaround on almost entirely foreign workers (bay area). They (1) got paid shit, (2) had no choice when to take their ten vacation days (firm says one day, "ok boys, you are taking vacation tomorrow. Enjoy!") (3) if they lost their job (which they certainly have by now) they have ONE MONTH to find another job suited to their visa (not just any job mind you) or they get kicked out of the country.

In other words the firm has them by the balls. But, they love it, because it beats living on ten dollars a day in Calcutta (or whatever).

The entire H1-B thing is nothing but a huge giveaway to companies that want to hire slave labor. There WERE plenty of qualified US workers, but the flood of outsourcing/visas made it so unappealing to go into sci/tech that the notion that the workforce was insufficient became a self-fulfilling prophecy: no smart US kid is going to go into those fields now.

I've read a lot on the consequences of outsourcing, both far and wide over a variety of industries and the results are always short term gain (measured in decades worth of temporary productivity gains) in exchange for long-term pain (stagnating wages that cannot support the real economy, thereby driving down market share and consumption of critical goods and services over the long haul). Spreading a job all over the map, whether it is IT work or legal, is like sewing a quilt with gaping holes in it. Stripping away the waste and the redundancy is one thing, getting rid of every last vestige of a safety net — even if all that means is the loss of excess worker capacity to take on emergency or overflow work, is foolhardy.

Ask Boeing. They've been building this "Dreamliner" over budget and with unprecedented delays even by airline production standards thanks to shoddy components that were not manufactured in house, engineering problems that are not worked out in a single time zone, etc. Boeing's international chain of suppliers are getting a raw deal too because this time around Boeing convinced many of them to front the expense of the orders rather than accept on-time payment. And since the project is years behind schedule, many of Boeing's globalized partners are teetering on the brink. It begs an even broader question: How is Boeing going to build more aircraft if in the course of this single project they kill off their suppliers who are running production lines on fumes?

This idea that it "takes a village" to get a task done, whether it's an airliner, a legal matter or a IT conversion for a major U.S. bank has gone too far. Our country's best and brightest CEOs and MBAs apparently look at efficiency in one-sided terms: Strictly in terms of dollars per hour but not the total cost, both seen and unseen, monetary and nonmonetary pros and cons. Example: When you run the headquarters with only a skeleton crew, even something as rampant as the swine flu can shut you down for lack of "excess capacity" in terms of human resources. What happens when that one legal secretary or paralegal, who has 100 percent utility because everyone else has been let go, comes down sick? Do we plan for the "unexpected variable"? Not under this version of an "efficient" market!

Contrary to popular thought, sometimes it really is easier to speed things along when all aspects of the project are controlled "in house" — or at least in the same state, time zone or country. One reason why so many firms are quick to jump on these outsourcing/insourcing bandwagons is that they have no means to visualize what the assets were in doing business the "traditional" way until those days are gone. Many U.S. companies contemplating outsourcing or insourcing for the first time are only looking at the benefits without a clear comprehension of the risks to reputation. (You may recall Mattel's struggle with reputation just two or three years ago after some among its tangled web of suppliers were found to be using lead in children's toys!)

Where this idea of a "free lunch" comes from — that by doing A or B we will somehow solve more problems than we create — I will never know. When the widget doesn't work due to a design flaw, and the mid level law documents are late because of some far off act of God, war, pandemic or espionage and we here in the US are beholden to the weakest link in the information and/or product supply chain, perhaps we will "get it".

Until then, welcome to the race to the bottom. There is a method to neocapitalism that is so overlly efficient in driving down costs that it eventually leaves too few consumers with the ability to pay for basic goods and services because wages have been driven too low and incomes, resources and budgets spread too thin over far-flung distances. Companies need to realize that one's consumers are also one's coworkers, employes and clients. Should any one of the links in that chain break the affluence of the whole diminishes.

It amazes me how many talented and educated people there are who nevertheless fail to see the Big Picture. Perhaps it is not rational and never will be. But if one wishes to make any of this stab-yourself-in-the-back SOUND rational, it only adds up if there is an intentional effort to impoverish the First Worlds and thereby "level the playing field" in terms of wages, legal systems, trade laws and the use of natural resources (in other words, Cap and Trade applied to Capitalist growth).

Hypothetically, if the powers that be are convinced that there aren't enough natural resources on the planet for everyone to live like Americans without triggering some horrid environmental tipping point, rather than playing this economic game of "chicken" wherein the outsourcing/insourcing phenomena ultimately depletes the First World consumer economies that are burning through resources and propping up Third World industrialization, wouldn't it be easier to put a cap on family size (population growth)? If that's really what it boils down to — that there are too many of us on this planet to all be "winners" — why use economic warfare to encourage Third World nations to participate in the First World trend of negative birthrates?

I'm looking extraordinarily far out, true, but this insourcing/outsourcing, drive-down-all-our-wages road leads somewhere, and the national policies that encourage this kind of nonsense are so overtly flawed that it is increasingly difficult to fathom how anyone in any position of influence or power kids themselves into believing that "extreme globalism" is any better than "extreme protectionism"? This comedy of economic errors only makes sense if it serves a greater purpose somehow. And I do mean greater than the usual greed, something akin to somebody's idea of cutting our wages and consumption down to keep the sheeple from destroying the planet. I suppose if one were to really BELIEVE that we were destroying the planet with our American style affluence it would make sense to sacrifice a couple of industries, a couple thousand jobs and perhaps even an entire over-privileged country. That's what "race to the bottom" looks like — the win-win of free market trade corrupted into a lowest-common-denominator-takes-all game.

The current economic model is not sustainable. A perfect free market might have accommodated such ideas, but we're not perfect people living in a perfect, Utopian world — and that's the one variable we can't afford to ignore.

If junior associates never got to work on the basic foundation of case building and then at the final stage have their work scrutinized and approved or corrected by a senior attorney..how the hell are they going to learn anything ?
Ive heard from friends in india that the accountability in these new breed of outsourcing companies is minimum. Most of these service providers crop up every monsoon and arent there anymore by the next. The majority of lawyer folks there dont know a thing about the american judicial system. If they do know then the best of them as said in the interview are only as goood as an associate of three years.

The downside then would be that the entire process of outsourcing firstly seriouly undermines the quality standards existing among legal professionals here in the long run by taking away the learning experience that Junior associates NEED to imbibe.

Secondly the work they take away is the work that paralegals and secretaries and interns do over here This kind of work usually is more clerical and monotonous than analytical. Which is why they skip liability when it comes to being sued for malpractice. The guy who is interviewed says so himself. This means that more fellow americans loose jobs.

The indian lawyers who enter this field are ones who dont earn substantially from their law practice and are mostly fresh graduates or rookies who are no better than or probably worse a high school drop outs here. The only criteria of hiring seems to be a good grasp of english. The assessment of their own employees by these companies on that benchmark is suspect. Result : choppy and sloppy work which is done in half the time. Quantity sans quality..

There clearly needs to be a overhaul in the legal services industry here as is obvious. The bloated fee system has to be regulated or would eventually prove to tbe the cancer that eats it up. But outsourcing would be more debilitating to work with as part of this change than without. We need to focus on streamlining and changing of processes pertaining to information management that can successfully combat the threat of outsourcing while at the same time getting rid of the overblown fee structure in place and on adopting more technology based and efficient approaches on how work is done and value is assigned by law firms here..

If junior associates never got to work on the basic foundation of case building and then at the final stage have their work scrutinized and approved or corrected by a senior attorney..how the hell are they going to learn anything ?
Ive heard from friends in india that the accountability in these new breed of outsourcing companies is minimum. Most of these service providers crop up every monsoon and arent there anymore by the next. The majority of lawyer folks there dont know a thing about the american judicial system. If they do know then the best of them as said in the interview are only as goood as an associate of three years.

The downside then would be that the entire process of outsourcing firstly seriouly undermines the quality standards existing among legal professionals here in the long run by taking away the learning experience that Junior associates NEED to imbibe.

Secondly the work they take away is the work that paralegals and secretaries and interns do over here This kind of work usually is more clerical and monotonous than analytical. Which is why they skip liability when it comes to being sued for malpractice. The guy who is interviewed says so himself. This means that more fellow americans loose jobs.

The indian lawyers who enter this field are ones who dont earn substantially from their law practice and are mostly fresh graduates or rookies who are no better than or probably worse a high school drop outs here. The only criteria of hiring seems to be a good grasp of english. The assessment of their own employees by these companies on that benchmark is suspect. Result : choppy and sloppy work which is done in half the time. Quantity sans quality..

There clearly needs to be a overhaul in the legal services industry here as is obvious. The bloated fee system has to be regulated or would eventually prove to tbe the cancer that eats it up. But outsourcing would be more debilitating to work with as part of this change than without. We need to focus on streamlining and changing of processes pertaining to information management that can successfully combat the threat of outsourcing while at the same time getting rid of the overblown fee structure in place and on adopting more technology based and efficient approaches on how work is done and value is assigned by law firms here..

If junior associates never got to work on the basic foundation of case building and then at the final stage have their work scrutinized and approved or corrected by a senior attorney..how the hell are they going to learn anything ?
Ive heard from friends in india that the accountability in these new breed of outsourcing companies is minimum. Most of these service providers crop up every monsoon and arent there anymore by the next. The majority of lawyer folks there dont know a thing about the american judicial system. If they do know then the best of them as said in the interview are only as goood as an associate of three years.

The downside then would be that the entire process of outsourcing firstly seriouly undermines the quality standards existing among legal professionals here in the long run by taking away the learning experience that Junior associates NEED to imbibe.

Secondly the work they take away is the work that paralegals and secretaries and interns do over here This kind of work usually is more clerical and monotonous than analytical. Which is why they skip liability when it comes to being sued for malpractice. The guy who is interviewed says so himself. This means that more fellow americans loose jobs.

The indian lawyers who enter this field are ones who dont earn substantially from their law practice and are mostly fresh graduates or rookies who are no better than or probably worse a high school drop outs here. The only criteria of hiring seems to be a good grasp of english. The assessment of their own employees by these companies on that benchmark is suspect. Result : choppy and sloppy work which is done in half the time. Quantity sans quality..

There clearly needs to be a overhaul in the legal services industry here as is obvious. The bloated fee system has to be regulated or would eventually prove to tbe the cancer that eats it up. But outsourcing would be more debilitating to work with as part of this change than without. We need to focus on streamlining and changing of processes pertaining to information management that can successfully combat the threat of outsourcing while at the same time getting rid of the overblown fee structure in place and on adopting more technology based and efficient approaches on how work is done and value is assigned by law firms here..

If junior associates never got to work on the basic foundation of case building and then at the final stage have their work scrutinized and approved or corrected by a senior attorney..how the hell are they going to learn anything ?
Ive heard from friends in india that the accountability in these new breed of outsourcing companies is minimum. Most of these service providers crop up every monsoon and arent there anymore by the next. The majority of lawyer folks there dont know a thing about the american judicial system. If they do know then the best of them as said in the interview are only as goood as an associate of three years.

The downside then would be that the entire process of outsourcing firstly seriouly undermines the quality standards existing among legal professionals here in the long run by taking away the learning experience that Junior associates NEED to imbibe.

Secondly the work they take away is the work that paralegals and secretaries and interns do over here This kind of work usually is more clerical and monotonous than analytical. Which is why they skip liability when it comes to being sued for malpractice. The guy who is interviewed says so himself. This means that more fellow americans loose jobs.

The indian lawyers who enter this field are ones who dont earn substantially from their law practice and are mostly fresh graduates or rookies who are no better than or probably worse a high school drop outs here. The only criteria of hiring seems to be a good grasp of english. The assessment of their own employees by these companies on that benchmark is suspect. Result : choppy and sloppy work which is done in half the time. Quantity sans quality..

There clearly needs to be a overhaul in the legal services industry here as is obvious. The bloated fee system has to be regulated or would eventually prove to tbe the cancer that eats it up. But outsourcing would be more debilitating to work with as part of this change than without. We need to focus on streamlining and changing of processes pertaining to information management that can successfully combat the threat of outsourcing while at the same time getting rid of the overblown fee structure in place and on adopting more technology based and efficient approaches on how work is done and value is assigned by law firms here..

If junior associates never got to work on the basic foundation of case building and then at the final stage have their work scrutinized and approved or corrected by a senior attorney..how the hell are they going to learn anything ?
Ive heard from friends in india that the accountability in these new breed of outsourcing companies is minimum. Most of these service providers crop up every monsoon and arent there anymore by the next. The majority of lawyer folks there dont know a thing about the american judicial system. If they do know then the best of them as said in the interview are only as goood as an associate of three years.

The downside then would be that the entire process of outsourcing firstly seriouly undermines the quality standards existing among legal professionals here in the long run by taking away the learning experience that Junior associates NEED to imbibe.

Secondly the work they take away is the work that paralegals and secretaries and interns do over here This kind of work usually is more clerical and monotonous than analytical. Which is why they skip liability when it comes to being sued for malpractice. The guy who is interviewed says so himself. This means that more fellow americans loose jobs.

The indian lawyers who enter this field are ones who dont earn substantially from their law practice and are mostly fresh graduates or rookies who are no better than or probably worse a high school drop outs here. The only criteria of hiring seems to be a good grasp of english. The assessment of their own employees by these companies on that benchmark is suspect. Result : choppy and sloppy work which is done in half the time. Quantity sans quality..

There clearly needs to be a overhaul in the legal services industry here as is obvious. The bloated fee system has to be regulated or would eventually prove to tbe the cancer that eats it up. But outsourcing would be more debilitating to work with as part of this change than without. We need to focus on streamlining and changing of processes pertaining to information management that can successfully combat the threat of outsourcing while at the same time getting rid of the overblown fee structure in place and on adopting more technology based and efficient approaches on how work is done and value is assigned by law firms here..