Ed. note: Gabe Acevedo, who covered LegalTech for Above the Law earlier this month, will be writing for these pages about legal technology.
Recently, Steven C. Bennett, the chair of Jones Day’s E-Discovery Committee, published an article [PDF] in the Northern Kentucky Law Review entitled “The Ethics of Legal Outsourcing.” In his article, Bennett relied heavily on a six page ethics opinion [PDF] issued by the ABA in August of 2008. When the ABA Formal Opinion 08-451 was released, many legal process outsourcing companies (LPOs) — the companies that hire overseas attorneys to do the work of American attorneys at a fraction of the cost — lauded it as an “endorsement” of their work. As Bennett noted in his article, the opinion even referred to outsourcing as something that was “salutary,” in that it would reduce costs for clients.
Those LPOs had a right to be celebratory about ABA 08-451. After all, never in the history of the United States was there ever an ethics opinion of any Bar Association that had done more to undermine the standing of both American attorneys and our practice of law.
I want to be clear: I am not against outsourcing. In fact, I am a product of it. I have had the chance to work on multiple document reviews as a contract attorney, which has helped provide me with a decent living. After all, my blog is all about e-discovery for goodness sake.
What I am against is the unauthorized practice of law. I am afraid to say that with this continued trend toward outsourcing e-discovery projects, the unauthorized practice of law is increasing with rapid speed.
I hear from attorneys all the time: “Oh, but wait, wait, wait, Gabe. Doc review is not practicing law.” This is a completely inane argument. Document review is part of the discovery process, which is part of practicing law. I know document review is rarely, if ever, exciting, and most of the time can be mind-numbingly boring. However, in reviewing documents for discovery, someone is making a call as to the responsiveness of document. I admit, it’s not like writing a Supreme Court brief, but the reviewer is making a legal judgment call.
Obviously, you don’t have to be an attorney to work on a document review and perform well in making those calls. In fact, you don’t always have to be an attorney to practice law in America. However, in almost every instance where a non-lawyer wants to practice law in this country (e.g., a law student in a clinic), that person must be under the strict supervision of a licensed attorney. The general ethics rule in every jurisdiction is that lawyers must supervise the work of non-lawyers to a much greater and more rigorous degree than simply supervising the work of another lawyer.
So what are some of the steps a licensed attorney can take to properly “supervise” outsourced non-attorneys? As Bennett’s article lays out, ABA Formal Opinion 08-451 provides some dubious, I mean, “concrete” guidance.
-May use electronic communications to “close the gap” in distance between the supervising lawyer and the outsourcing vendor, but such communications “may not be sufficient to allow the lawyer to monitor the work of the lawyers and non-lawyers working for her in an effective manner.”
Ok, I get that. We live in the world of the internet, a global economy, blah, blah, blah. I understand that a supervising lawyer does not have to stand over the shoulder of a non-lawyer during the entire time he or she is doing their work. Email in many cases may be sufficient. Let’s move on.
-Should “consider conducting reference checks and investigating the background” of the outsourcing vendor.
-Might consider interviewing the principal lawyers, if any, involved in the project on behalf of the vendor, and also inquire into the vendor’s hiring practices.
-Should consider investigating the security of the provider’s premises, computer networks, and “perhaps even its recycling and refuse disposal procedures,” to ensure that confidential information is kept secure.
Aren’t these just basic steps in hiring any vendor for any large project, whether that project is conducted in the States or abroad? This has absolutely nothing to do with supervision; this is simply about hiring practices. Oh, but wait, it gets better. Here comes the kicker:
The ABA suggested that “in some instances” it “may be prudent to pay a personal visit” to the vendor’s facility, “regardless of its location or the difficulty of travel,” to get a firsthand sense of the vendor’s operations, for which the supervising lawyer will have ultimate responsibility.
Gee! That’s fantastic. Can you imagine? A firm hires a bunch of non-lawyers to handle a document review involving millions of documents, and they happen to just let a few privileged documents slip into the responsive pile, or perhaps lose a few crucial documents in the non-responsive pile, and now that firm is in court explaining themselves to a judge, trying to avoid sanctions. I guess their argument could be something like, “Well, shucks, we did our best. We checked their references, made sure the place was secure, emailed them a bunch of times, and, ‘in some instances,’ we actually went to the place ourselves.”
If you think firms will never find themselves in those types of situations, well, some of them already have.
The weak language that ABA 08-451 used in describing attorney supervision over non-attorneys bolstered LPOs and other staffing agencies focused on e-discovery around the world. With the ABA’s standards, what is to stop any major discovery review from being conducted overseas by non-licensed attorneys, or even high school students here at home? A process that was already spinning out of control was now completely unraveled.
I want to point out one bright spot in ABA 08-451: one line in their six-page opinion that I greatly wish they, and Mr. Bennett, had expanded on. Specifically with regard to supervising outsourced work completed by foreign attorneys:
What it does mean is that, in such circumstances, it will be more important than ever for the outsourcing lawyer to scrutinize the work done by the foreign lawyers – perhaps viewing them as nonlawyers – before relying upon their work in rendering legal services to the client.
Exactly. But how is it possible for supervising attorneys to “scrutinize” foreign attorneys or non-lawyers on an e-discovery review where 5, 10, 20+ million documents are involved? Let’s be real. You really can’t.
Sure, the attorneys might go back and check the documents that were marked responsive, but what about the documents that were marked non-responsive? Are those documents just going to float away into outer space, in the hope that nothing important was left in them? In my opinion, using foreign attorneys or non-lawyers for large-scale e-discovery reviews may actually become more expensive for clients if a true, ethically-sufficient level of scrutiny is required.
Think about it. A law firm decides to outsource a document review that contains a universe of 200,000 documents (which is an incredibly small review by today’s standards). Imagine that after the firm outsources it to cheaper non-lawyers, they would have to go back through almost every document again to make certain what they were handing over was in order. Basically two people would be doing the work of one person, costing their client more money than if they had just outsourced this to licensed attorneys in the first place.
Let’s face it: the practice of discovery in American law is not just on a slippery slope, it’s careening down a steep mountain covered in fet feet of solid ice. I am afraid that if the leaders in our profession do not step up and stem the tide of this soon, the line between who and who cannot practice law in this country will eventually become almost unrecognizable.
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of outsourcing
check you 404
Outsourcing is the future. Get used to it.
The Gay Avocado is back!
Can you guys run an article about how much clients complain about being billed for “doc rev?” There was a post in the past month or so regarding a large firm being sued by a client… I remember the term “only the passing of summer stopped the plague of summer associates” billing for “doc rev.” It may simply be necessary given clients’ savvy regarding what the lawyers are actually doing. They don’t want to pay $300/ hour for an associate to do it, because the work simply isn’t worth that much. But in order to appease the client while keeping the correct profit per partner, firms have to go outside. My question: Why don’t they hire legions of TTT law students to do it? They’re eager to impress, will work hard thanklessly, and you can bill them out at $80/ hour while paying them $20/ hour. Some Cal Western or GGU student would jump at the chance to think they’re getting a foot in the door at the likes of Howrey or Wilson Sonsini or some shit like that.
“Let’s face it: the practice of discovery in American law is not just on a slippery slope, it’s careening down a steep mountain covered in fet feet of solid ice. I am afraid that if the leaders in our profession do not step up and stem the tide of this soon, the line between who and who cannot practice law in this country will eventually become almost unrecognizable.”
What unit of measure is “fet?” Also, you need a “can” after the first who.
Now some of you will see how support staff feels when let go due to so called downsizing. Not even the job of an attorney is secure anymore.
What we need is a death penalty sanction in a hundred million dollar suit, imposed because counsel failed to produce a critical document that had been flagged non-responsive
Avocado!!!!!
I’m all for outsourcing so long as the companies to whom we outsource are forced to follow the same rules the US imposes its own companies.
I guess Gabe is too busy reviewing documents to know that Fed. R. Evid. 502 obviates the “danger” of slipping privileged documents to the other side. See, e.g., 502(d).
I do agree, however, that this outsourcing practice is appalling but there’s not much that can be done to stop it b/c I’m sure clients will begin screaming for it. But hey, they get what (little) they pay for.
Hmmm. Does anyone wonder why ABA membership is dropping and why people are relying more and more on local bar associations?
Whoah! An article about the practice of law! I must have gotten onto the wrong blog.
Oh, what’s this, server problems? Never mind, this is ATL after all.
Whoah! An article about the practice of law! I must have gotten onto the wrong blog.
Oh, what’s this, server problems? Never mind, this is ATL after all.
omg – MS Word is engaging in unauthorized practice of law! I entered a word in a field in a form contract and Word filled in all linked fields with the same word! Even though I operated/supervised the program, it made a “legal judgement call” as to what terms should go in each field, which should be done only by attorneys.
Oh crap, I just did a “find and replace all” and MS Word changed my contract again in 52 places! 52 legal judgement calls! Only an attorney is qualified to determine if each instance of “recieved” should have been “delivered.” I’m f.o.b. screwed now!
What about the MoFo salaries and bonuses announced this morning? Get with it!!!
11 – Not true.
The court has the option of clawing back privileged documents, but it certainly doesn’t have to do so, as has been painfully demonstrated many times in the past. Furthermore, once a privileged document is inadvertently released the proverbial cat is out of the bag. Even if the court allows the claw back, the opposing side knows the contents.
11, not mentioning the new rule was a ridiculous oversight. However, when you have to call the in-house lawyer to tell her that you produced 500 hot, privileged emails, some from her own account, talking about rule 502 is not going to save your ass. Explaining that your 200 contractors were reviewing 5 million documents, making the error statistically minor, will also fall on deaf ears.
Setting aside whether the client’s expectations are reasonable, the crisis here is one of professional responsiblity, not merely one of procedure. You have a duty to protect your client’s privilege, and that privilege is the cornerstone of the profession.
11 – Maybe you should read and understand FRE 502 before critiquing someone else’s legal understanding. Rule 502(d) applies to agreed protective orders etc. where you can ask for an order allowing you to turn over protected material (usually in a white collar criminal or SEC investigation) to the government in order to “cooperate” without waiving the privilege in any civil suit that may follow.
The issue is Rule 502(b) on inadvertent disclosure, which requires reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and prompt reasonable steps to rectify the error, and whether there is any way to take reasonable steps when the review is being done by unknown people in a doc review warehouse on the other side of the world.
The original post incorrectly argues that doc review is necessarily the practice of law. That is wrong. Doc review is the practice of law only when the client hires a lawyer to conduct the doc review and provide legal advice during the course of the review. In plenty of instances, clients are not willing to pay for lawyers to conduct the doc review, and doc reviews are staffed by non-lawyers. In small-scale document requests, frequently no pre-production doc review takes place at all.
Ultimately, this is a GC issue, not a law firm issue. Most GCs I’ve dealt with hate paying for expensive doc review. But they also strongly desire that lawyers conduct the doc review in order to cover their asses.
The foreigners are a good way to meet both of those goals In theory, but in practice hiring foreigners to conduct a doc review shouldn’t give GCs a CYA. Judges will quickly realize this, and only GCs at truly shitty companies will still feel comfortable hiring foreigners to conduct large-scale doc review.
The real problem is unrestrained immigration–bad enough in a relatively healthy economy, insane with unemployment over 10%.
Little brown people make good doc reviewers,
Howrey has been in discovery trouble before. Around 1980, they went to trial on an antitrust case that had been in discovery for years. At trial, a Howrey paralegal handed up some documents that were passed to the other side. Turned out the other side had been told for years the documents didn’t exist. Howrey had to forfeit its legal fees in the case, a disaster for the firm at the time. The paralegal got fired, of course, but no one else suffered adverse consequences.
They have taken the bridge and the second hall. We have barred the gates but cannot hold them for long. The ground shakes, drums… drums in the deep. We cannot get out. A shadow lurks in the dark. We can not get out… they are coming.
They have taken the bridge and the second hall. We have barred the gates but cannot hold them for long. The ground shakes, drums… drums in the deep. We cannot get out. A shadow lurks in the dark. We can not get out… they are coming.
this was interesting
18-20…
11 here. No, it is you who doesn’t understand how Rule 502(d) works. Rule 502 applies to private parties as much as to the government. You obviate the danger of waiver by moving the court to enter an order pursuant to 502(d) (it doesn’t have to be “agreed”) before disclosure/discovery stating that any disclosure of privileged material –even if it’s intentional — will not constitute a waiver of att’y client or work product. In fact, you can put such a clause in your scheduling order at the outset of the litigation.
Try it. It might save you having to explain to your GC why you f’d up. And if you’re reading 502 that narrowly, you’re committing malpractice.
The 502(b) and 502(a) waiver analysis applies when you don’t have a 502(d) order.
18-20…
11 here. No, it is you who doesn’t understand how Rule 502(d) works. Rule 502 applies to private parties as much as to the government. You obviate the danger of waiver by moving the court to enter an order pursuant to 502(d) (it doesn’t have to be “agreed”) before disclosure/discovery stating that any disclosure of privileged material –even if it’s intentional — will not constitute a waiver of att’y client or work product. In fact, you can put such a clause in your scheduling order at the outset of the litigation.
Try it. It might save you having to explain to your GC why you f’d up. And if you’re reading 502 that narrowly, you’re committing malpractice.
The 502(b) and 502(a) waiver analysis applies when you don’t have a 502(d) order.
“After all, never in the history of the United States was there ever an ethics opinion of any Bar Association that had done more to undermine the standing of both American attorneys and our practice of law.”
David,
This was by far your best hire so far. Good job.
Gabe references Howrey in the link. They used contract attorneys (just like your previous admitted self), not foreign attorneys or non-lawyers.
Way to shoot your argument in the foot Gabe.
How quaint. Those old days when law was a profession and not a business. Imagine some people still believe. Adorable.
How quaint. Those old days when law was a profession and not a business. Imagine some people still believe. Adorable.
How quaint. Those old days when law was a profession and not a business. Imagine some people still believe. Adorable.
How quaint. Those old days when law was a profession and not a business. Imagine some people still believe. Adorable.
28, thanks for the useful clarification for the uninitiated. But the point remains that, whether or not a court will consider a document waived does not address whether damage was done to the client’s position. Furthermore, as you must know, the lack of waiver in the case subject to the order, under the rule, may have no bearing on whether there is waiver for other proceedings or purposes. In any event, nothwithstanding an order in place or an agreement, if you don’t tell your client that you “inadvertently” produced privileged material because you feel the rule moots the issue, you are committing something possibly worse than malpractice.
Good for you (at AbovetheLaw) for keeping us aware of this kind of stuff. And for being opposed to, when the leaders of the bar seem to be so in favor of it. What kind of leaders are they anyway?
21 – the foreign “lawyers” you speak of are non-lawyers in the U.S. In other words, if they’re not licensed in this country, they cannot be considered lawyers.
21 – the foreign “lawyers” you speak of are non-lawyers in the U.S. In other words, if they’re not licensed in this country, they cannot be considered lawyers.
The author is correct that “you really can’t” have supervising attorneys “scrutinize” review decisions in a project involving millions of documents.
But that fact undermines his conclusion. To the contrary, the traditional approach to large-scale projects he describes — that taken by most law firms — is fundamentally broken.
Document review is at some level a legal process, but it is much more “process” than it is “legal.” Corporations do not hire law firms because they are good at document review, or even because they are particularly good at managing large-scale, complex projects. They hire them for their legal expertise.
Growing volumes of corporate data, together with increasing sophistication on the part of in-house counsel and the financial pressure increasingly applied to corporate law departments, is driving a shift in the legal services marketplace.
Fortunately for the person who really should matter here — the client — that evolution is professionalizing, not undermining, the practice of discovery in American law.
There are substantial differences between hiring a professional legal services outsourcing company and a large law firm: you’ll pay less; your costs will be predictable; decisions will be substantially more consistent; and the process will be more transparent. Recently published benchmarks show that where law firms manage contract attorneys, document review can cost as much as $8.50 per document. By leveraging better processes, skilled management, technology expertise, and continuous improvement, the best legal services outsourcing providers can typically do the same work at less than 25% of that price, with measurably better quality and speed,
Of course, there are some legal judgments that must be applied within the context of any review project. Those decisions occur in the boundary cases on determinations of relevance, privilege, and importance to the substance of the case. A well-designed managed review process integrates attorneys to render judgment on those boundary cases, with mechanisms to ensure those judgments are propagated and applied consistently and correctly across potentially millions of documents. Such a structure is critical to a defensible process and quality results.
But the unauthorized practice of law? In my experience, it can be a bigger problem (with dimensions in professional ethics, not just finance) to hand massive review projects to organizations that typically lack the skills, experience, and incentives to manage them effectively.
36, excellent point on the damage to the client’s position, which I definitely wasn’t thinking about. Yes, if the cat’s out of the bag, it’s out of the bag.
The beauty of Rule 502(d), however, is that it does have a bearing on other proceedings (federal or state) and it means that you won’t have a waiver in secula seculorum:
Controlling Effect of a Court Order- A Federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court–in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other Federal or State proceeding.
Soo…the Supremacy Clause is quite a clause…again, use this rule as often as you can. It will minimize the damage of a disclosoure.
The author is correct that “you really can’t” have supervising attorneys “scrutinize” review decisions in a project involving millions of documents.
But that fact undermines his conclusion. To the contrary, the traditional approach to large-scale projects he describes — that taken by most law firms — is fundamentally broken.
Document review is at some level a legal process, but it is much more “process” than it is “legal.” Corporations do not hire law firms because they are good at document review, or even because they are particularly good at managing large-scale, complex projects. They hire them for their legal expertise.
Growing volumes of corporate data, together with increasing sophistication on the part of in-house counsel and the financial pressure increasingly applied to corporate law departments, is driving a shift in the legal services marketplace.
Fortunately for the person who really should matter here — the client — that evolution is professionalizing, not undermining, the practice of discovery in American law.
There are substantial differences between hiring a professional legal services outsourcing company and a large law firm: you’ll pay less; your costs will be predictable; decisions will be substantially more consistent; and the process will be more transparent. Recently published benchmarks show that where law firms manage contract attorneys, document review can cost as much as $8.50 per document. By leveraging better processes, skilled management, technology expertise, and continuous improvement, the best legal services outsourcing providers can typically do the same work at less than 25% of that price, with measurably better quality and speed,
Of course, there are some legal judgments that must be applied within the context of any review project. Those decisions occur in the boundary cases on determinations of relevance, privilege, and importance to the substance of the case. A well-designed managed review process integrates attorneys to render judgment on those boundary cases, with mechanisms to ensure those judgments are propagated and applied consistently and correctly across potentially millions of documents. Such a structure is critical to a defensible process and quality results.
But the unauthorized practice of law? In my experience, it can be a bigger problem (with dimensions in professional ethics, not just finance) to hand massive review projects to organizations that typically lack the skills, experience, and incentives to manage them effectively.
The author is correct that “you really can’t” have supervising attorneys “scrutinize” review decisions in a project involving millions of documents.
But that fact undermines his conclusion. To the contrary, the traditional approach to large-scale projects he describes — that taken by most law firms — is fundamentally broken.
Document review is at some level a legal process, but it is much more “process” than it is “legal.” Corporations do not hire law firms because they are good at document review, or even because they are particularly good at managing large-scale, complex projects. They hire them for their legal expertise.
Growing volumes of corporate data, together with increasing sophistication on the part of in-house counsel and the financial pressure increasingly applied to corporate law departments, is driving a shift in the legal services marketplace.
Fortunately for the person who really should matter here — the client — that evolution is professionalizing, not undermining, the practice of discovery in American law.
There are substantial differences between hiring a professional legal services outsourcing company and a large law firm: you’ll pay less; your costs will be predictable; decisions will be substantially more consistent; and the process will be more transparent. Recently published benchmarks show that where law firms manage contract attorneys, document review can cost as much as $8.50 per document. By leveraging better processes, skilled management, technology expertise, and continuous improvement, the best legal services outsourcing providers can typically do the same work at less than 25% of that price, with measurably better quality and speed,
Of course, there are some legal judgments that must be applied within the context of any review project. Those decisions occur in the boundary cases on determinations of relevance, privilege, and importance to the substance of the case. A well-designed managed review process integrates attorneys to render judgment on those boundary cases, with mechanisms to ensure those judgments are propagated and applied consistently and correctly across potentially millions of documents. Such a structure is critical to a defensible process and quality results.
But the unauthorized practice of law? In my experience, it can be a bigger problem (with dimensions in professional ethics, not just finance) to hand massive review projects to organizations that typically lack the skills, experience, and incentives to manage them effectively.
The author is correct that “you really can’t” have supervising attorneys “scrutinize” review decisions in a project involving millions of documents.
But that fact undermines his conclusion. To the contrary, the traditional approach to large-scale projects he describes — that taken by most law firms — is fundamentally broken.
Document review is at some level a legal process, but it is much more “process” than it is “legal.” Corporations do not hire law firms because they are good at document review, or even because they are particularly good at managing large-scale, complex projects. They hire them for their legal expertise.
Growing volumes of corporate data, together with increasing sophistication on the part of in-house counsel and the financial pressure increasingly applied to corporate law departments, is driving a shift in the legal services marketplace.
Fortunately for the person who really should matter here — the client — that evolution is professionalizing, not undermining, the practice of discovery in American law.
There are substantial differences between hiring a professional legal services outsourcing company and a large law firm: you’ll pay less; your costs will be predictable; decisions will be substantially more consistent; and the process will be more transparent. Recently published benchmarks show that where law firms manage contract attorneys, document review can cost as much as $8.50 per document. By leveraging better processes, skilled management, technology expertise, and continuous improvement, the best legal services outsourcing providers can typically do the same work at less than 25% of that price, with measurably better quality and speed,
Of course, there are some legal judgments that must be applied within the context of any review project. Those decisions occur in the boundary cases on determinations of relevance, privilege, and importance to the substance of the case. A well-designed managed review process integrates attorneys to render judgment on those boundary cases, with mechanisms to ensure those judgments are propagated and applied consistently and correctly across potentially millions of documents. Such a structure is critical to a defensible process and quality results.
But the unauthorized practice of law? In my experience, it can be a bigger problem (with dimensions in professional ethics, not just finance) to hand massive review projects to organizations that typically lack the skills, experience, and incentives to manage them effectively.
Hey #40-44, if you’re going to post your outsourcing company’s press releases in the ATL comments, at least tell us which of those vendors you work for.
Incidentally, did you outsource the drafting of your comment to India? Most Americans would know that jargon like “leveraging better processes” doesn’t mean anything (even when your “mechanisms” are “propagated and applied consistently.”). They’d also know that posting your marketing materials in blog comments two days after the original post makes your company look petty and slow. Not what I’d want from my document reviewers.
Hey #40-44, if you’re going to post your outsourcing company’s press releases in the ATL comments, at least tell us which of those vendors you work for.
Incidentally, did you outsource the drafting of your comment to India? Most Americans would know that jargon like “leveraging better processes” doesn’t mean anything (even when your “mechanisms” are “propagated and applied consistently.”). They’d also know that posting your marketing materials in blog comments two days after the original post makes your company look petty and slow. Not what I’d want from my document reviewers.
Hey #40, 42-44, if you’re going to post your outsourcing company’s press releases in the ATL comments, at least tell us which of those vendors you work for.
Incidentally, did you outsource the drafting of your comment to India? Most Americans would know that jargon like “leveraging better processes” doesn’t mean anything (even when your “mechanisms” are “propagated and applied consistently.”) They’d also know that posting marketing materials on a blog two days after the original post makes you look petty and slow. Not what I’d want from my document reviewers.
Why do so many posts show up four times?
Why do so many posts show up four times?
Up here in the Northeast, we used to say the same things when the mills and factories started to move down south: the jobs will be back because down south they may be cheaper, but they are lazy, slow, inefficient, won’t be able to figure out how to work the machines, etc. The jobs never came back, and they kept going south and then way over to the east. The grunt work of the legal profession is going the same way. It’s over.
I don’t care about outsourcing, but why are we required to outsource but India won’t accept U.S. biglaw firms coming in. I say allow outsourcing, but only to countries with reciprocity.
Anyone here who is an apologist for outsourcing (citing client savings) must be just that: a client. Because it wouldn’t make any sense why a lawyer here in the USA would support the idea of law jobs going overseas. What does a US lawyer gain by arguing for outsourcing? I don’t get it. To extrapolate: How can leaders in the bar write law review articles focusing only client interests re: outsourcing? Shouldn’t the leaders of the bar be arguing for the bar’s interests (i.e., focusing on the problems that outsourcing creates for the employability of the bar?) On this discrete issue, attorneys at top law firms, at the ABA, and at local bars need to get their priorities straight: Don’t worry about the client — worry about the lawyers!
I liked the original author’s comment here on outsourcing — every law firm is, actually, “outsourcing” work that could be done within the corporation. And the reasons corporations use law firms — generally speaking, expertise and capacity — are the same factors that drive outsourcing of any other non-core business need.
I also think it’s interesting that “outsourcing” is often taken to mean “offshoring.” I guess it can mean that, but it seems that in my legal practice geography is pretty meaningless — some clients I represented for years before ever meeting them.
Offshore outsourcing is terrible for any American, and even more terrible in light of America’s desperate unemployment situation, plain and simple. And if something isn’t done to stop these sickening corporations from firing (or not hiring) Americans in favor of foreigners, we’re all in big trouble (lawyers, other white collar workers, blue collar workers. etc).
Offshore outsourcing is terrible for any American, and even more terrible in light of America’s desperate unemployment situation, plain and simple. And if something isn’t done to stop these sickening corporations from firing (or not hiring) Americans in favor of foreigners, we’re all in big trouble (lawyers, other white collar workers, blue collar workers. etc).
above commenter is a big smell bitch