Comments on: Legal Olympics Update: Outsourcing E-Discovery Sliding Down Slippery Slope, at Record Speed

By: dfafa dfaf

dfafa dfaf — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:32:35 +0000

above commenter is a big smell bitch

By: guest

guest — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:31:36 +0000

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).

By: guest

guest — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:30:46 +0000

By: guest

guest — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:33:12 +0000

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.

By: guest

guest — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:16:12 +0000

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!

By: guest

guest — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:05:57 +0000

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.

By: guest

guest — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:27:44 +0000

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.

By: guest

guest — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:39:03 +0000

Why do so many posts show up four times?

By: guest

guest — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:38:36 +0000

Why do so many posts show up four times?

By: guest

guest — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:37:22 +0000

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.