V HEMAMALINI
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ FRIDAY, JANUARY 05, 2007 12:20:39 PM ]
CHENNAI: If Clarvolex, Paneaga and Intellevate are the top MNCs that are in Noida to tap the legal process outsourcing (LPO) opportunity in India, then the entry of Cobra Legal Solutions (CLS) into Chennai, is expected to mark the rush of many legal firms, vying for a share of the $ 250 billion global LPO pie.
According to industry sources, the market is still in a nascent stage. But by December 2007, several legal majors are slated to enter Chennai, due to its knowledge process outsourcing base and the availability of an exceptional talent pool.
Of the estimated 2,000 people, serving the LPO business in India, there are about 100-120 Indian lawyers, who are well-versed in US laws, sources said, adding CLS is the first MNC in the LPO space to enter south. Initially, CLS would have a medium-sized operation, that would call for recruiting about 500 people. Other smaller players include Office Tiger and Comat.
November last, CLS advertised in a foreign media, for a CEO to head its Chennai operations. The description read "Legal offshoring operation looking for experienced lawyer and/or paralegal with four to six years 'big case' US litigation management experience to direct legal operations in Chennai, India. Two year minimum commitment in Chennai required."
CLS, principally-owned by senior partners in major US law firms, has retained Ma Foi Management Consultants, as recruiters. It is looking for legal specialists (litigation) and legal support professionals. Specialists need to have global client servicing experience and ability to use Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw and other resource databases. Graduates with strong English skills and computer proficiency fit the legal support profile.
Sources said a legal specialist, with two years experience, commands a salary of Rs 40,000-Rs 50,000 a month, while a lawyer to act as a support professional could command a monthly earning of Rs 10,000-Rs 15,000.
Chennai-based law office of Mohan Associates, primarily into patents and trade marks, is also mulling to enter the booming LPO space this calendar year. "It is not a legal input alone. Lawyers and computer operators have to necessarily put in joint efforts," Mr A A Mohan told ET.
Lawyers confined to Indian courts would not be suitable for the LPO work. "Expertise in corporate affairs and intellectual property is needed," he said, pointing to the three stages involved in the LPO business.
Stage one, being the prior art search procedure in respect of patents, which seems to have caught on. Stage two is one of drafting specifications and here too, the huge LPO opportunity is being tapped. "But in stage III, which would mean Indian lawyers answering examination reports by USPTO, we are still in a nascent stage," he noted.
An LPO job, which could fetch $350 an hour in the US, could be done for $50-$75 in India. South has 40% of the country's annual pass out of three lakh law graduates, he added.
“ The above article has been reprinted from http://infotech.indiatimes.com and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Monday, January 08, 2007
International Patchwork of Media Laws Can Be a Minefield for Online Publishing
International Patchwork of Media Laws Can Be a Minefield for Online Publishing
By Charles J. Glasser Jr. and James F. Haggerty
The National Law Journal
01-08-2007
As sports fans around the globe became transfixed last summer by the World Cup, a U.K. libel case featuring Ashley Cole, a top British footballer, captured the attention of many of the world's media lawyers. Cole reached a settlement in a libel suit against two British publications that never actually mentioned him by name: Cole's attorneys argued that readers could easily surmise his identity from Web sites that picked up the story and provided further detail.
Meanwhile, in late August, The New York Times finally came to grips with the conflicting patchwork of laws that allow Internet publication in one country, but may raise liability in others. In reporting about the arrest of Islamic terrorists in London, the Times added facts that, under the United Kingdom's Contempt of Court Act, are considered prejudicial to the fair-trial rights of the accused. In the face of violations of British law, the Times' solution was to prevent U.K.-based Internet addresses from accessing the story. The need for this work-around underscores the deepest philosophical infirmity in U.K. and E.U. law (and, indeed, the laws of most other jurisdictions worldwide): Free press is just not as valued as a foundation of democracy as it is here. While the U.S. First Amendment allows only narrowly tailored restrictions on such speech, in the United Kingdom the public's right to know is often first on the chopping block.
The practical application of this distinction is obvious: In the era when electronic communication can circle the globe instantly, every company that communicates globally can be liable under defamation and privacy law -- and just as liable in the United Kingdom, or in India, or China, as they are in the United States.
That's a daunting prospect for U.S. lawyers representing media companies that maintain Web sites with the potential to reach thousands of readers worldwide. Indeed, those who do business globally might find themselves subject to libel or privacy claims in diverse corners of the world for material on their Web sites, blogs and message boards, or for press materials distributed via e-mail, the Web or commercial newswires.
FAIRNESS AND OTHER FACTORS
What is a lawyer to do when advising as to Web site content and other electronic communications? What is a blogger to do when deciding whether or not to break a story? Lessons drawn from international newsgathering offer a useful guide to operating in the global media environment. Consider fairness, for example. Fairness not only means presenting both sides, but also giving your subject an adequate opportunity to respond. In 2003, The London Daily Telegraph was successfully sued in Britain for publishing an article alleging that a British member of Parliament was a paid agent of Saddam Hussein. Even though the reporter had telephoned the politician the evening before the story went to print, the court ruled that adequate opportunity for comment had not been given.
Also consider whether the story in question is serving the public interest. This is the single most consistent element that protects journalists and publishers around the world in libel cases. What is of interest to the public is not the same thing as what is in the public interest -- which may be news to many a celebrity gossip blogger.
And remember cultural distinctions: A simple word can make the difference between accurate reporting and slander. Seemingly inoffensive language in one country can be a very expensive mistake in another. For example to be "fired" in the United States is not in itself defamatory, but in France or Japan, this word could land you in court. If someone loses his or her job for economic reasons in Japan, where being fired is considered shameful, that person is reported as being "made redundant." Similarly, it's almost impossible to be fired in France, so when that word is used, it is assumed that the subject was in violation of duty.
Finally, in fairness to our global cousins in the United Kingdom, the rest of the European Union and other jurisdictions: There is some value to the higher standards of reporting required. Although it is sacrilegious to say it in the United States, the greatest fear of all media lawyers is to run across that one overworked or burnt-out reporter or editor who believes that because the "public figure" and "actual malice" standards are next to impossible to surmount, careful reporting and clear writing are optional. By requiring a higher degree of care and accuracy, clarity and fairness rise commensurately.
It is clear that the days when only the largest global media companies had to worry about international libel and privacy issues are long gone. Internet publishing makes understanding international libel laws every lawyer's problem. It is often said that there is a reason why our First Amendment is first: that the right to speak freely is the right from which all other freedoms flow. But while this may be a cornerstone of American libel and privacy law, U.S. lawyers cannot let it lull us into a false sense of security when representing clients whose Internet posts are read not just in their hometown, but on computers across the globe.
Charles J. Glasser Jr. is media counsel responsible for media law and newsroom ethics for Bloomberg's global television, book publishing, radio, wire service and desktop-delivery news operations. He is the author of "The International Libel and Privacy Handbook: A Global Reference for Journalists, Publishers, Webmasters, and Lawyers" (Bloomberg Press 2006). James F. Haggerty is an attorney, communications consultant and author of "In the Court of Public Opinion: Winning Your Case With Public Relations" (Wiley 2003).
By Charles J. Glasser Jr. and James F. Haggerty
The National Law Journal
01-08-2007
As sports fans around the globe became transfixed last summer by the World Cup, a U.K. libel case featuring Ashley Cole, a top British footballer, captured the attention of many of the world's media lawyers. Cole reached a settlement in a libel suit against two British publications that never actually mentioned him by name: Cole's attorneys argued that readers could easily surmise his identity from Web sites that picked up the story and provided further detail.
Meanwhile, in late August, The New York Times finally came to grips with the conflicting patchwork of laws that allow Internet publication in one country, but may raise liability in others. In reporting about the arrest of Islamic terrorists in London, the Times added facts that, under the United Kingdom's Contempt of Court Act, are considered prejudicial to the fair-trial rights of the accused. In the face of violations of British law, the Times' solution was to prevent U.K.-based Internet addresses from accessing the story. The need for this work-around underscores the deepest philosophical infirmity in U.K. and E.U. law (and, indeed, the laws of most other jurisdictions worldwide): Free press is just not as valued as a foundation of democracy as it is here. While the U.S. First Amendment allows only narrowly tailored restrictions on such speech, in the United Kingdom the public's right to know is often first on the chopping block.
The practical application of this distinction is obvious: In the era when electronic communication can circle the globe instantly, every company that communicates globally can be liable under defamation and privacy law -- and just as liable in the United Kingdom, or in India, or China, as they are in the United States.
That's a daunting prospect for U.S. lawyers representing media companies that maintain Web sites with the potential to reach thousands of readers worldwide. Indeed, those who do business globally might find themselves subject to libel or privacy claims in diverse corners of the world for material on their Web sites, blogs and message boards, or for press materials distributed via e-mail, the Web or commercial newswires.
FAIRNESS AND OTHER FACTORS
What is a lawyer to do when advising as to Web site content and other electronic communications? What is a blogger to do when deciding whether or not to break a story? Lessons drawn from international newsgathering offer a useful guide to operating in the global media environment. Consider fairness, for example. Fairness not only means presenting both sides, but also giving your subject an adequate opportunity to respond. In 2003, The London Daily Telegraph was successfully sued in Britain for publishing an article alleging that a British member of Parliament was a paid agent of Saddam Hussein. Even though the reporter had telephoned the politician the evening before the story went to print, the court ruled that adequate opportunity for comment had not been given.
Also consider whether the story in question is serving the public interest. This is the single most consistent element that protects journalists and publishers around the world in libel cases. What is of interest to the public is not the same thing as what is in the public interest -- which may be news to many a celebrity gossip blogger.
And remember cultural distinctions: A simple word can make the difference between accurate reporting and slander. Seemingly inoffensive language in one country can be a very expensive mistake in another. For example to be "fired" in the United States is not in itself defamatory, but in France or Japan, this word could land you in court. If someone loses his or her job for economic reasons in Japan, where being fired is considered shameful, that person is reported as being "made redundant." Similarly, it's almost impossible to be fired in France, so when that word is used, it is assumed that the subject was in violation of duty.
Finally, in fairness to our global cousins in the United Kingdom, the rest of the European Union and other jurisdictions: There is some value to the higher standards of reporting required. Although it is sacrilegious to say it in the United States, the greatest fear of all media lawyers is to run across that one overworked or burnt-out reporter or editor who believes that because the "public figure" and "actual malice" standards are next to impossible to surmount, careful reporting and clear writing are optional. By requiring a higher degree of care and accuracy, clarity and fairness rise commensurately.
It is clear that the days when only the largest global media companies had to worry about international libel and privacy issues are long gone. Internet publishing makes understanding international libel laws every lawyer's problem. It is often said that there is a reason why our First Amendment is first: that the right to speak freely is the right from which all other freedoms flow. But while this may be a cornerstone of American libel and privacy law, U.S. lawyers cannot let it lull us into a false sense of security when representing clients whose Internet posts are read not just in their hometown, but on computers across the globe.
Charles J. Glasser Jr. is media counsel responsible for media law and newsroom ethics for Bloomberg's global television, book publishing, radio, wire service and desktop-delivery news operations. He is the author of "The International Libel and Privacy Handbook: A Global Reference for Journalists, Publishers, Webmasters, and Lawyers" (Bloomberg Press 2006). James F. Haggerty is an attorney, communications consultant and author of "In the Court of Public Opinion: Winning Your Case With Public Relations" (Wiley 2003).
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Lawyers, Fun & Money
LAWYERS, FUN & MONEY
By SAIRA RAO
December 31, 2006 -- The city's largest, most prestigious law firms are suffering from serious brain drain.
Young, Gen-X lawyers in their third to fifth year in the business are walking away from their $200,000-a-year positions in record numbers - at times without another job in view.
The reason? They are unhappy with their Blackberry lifestyle - being tethered to the job 24/7 and having to rush back to the office at a moment's notice when e-mail orders pop up on the ubiquitous PDA.
The exodus of law firm associates is unprecedented, according to the National Association of Law Placement, or NALP, which found that 37 percent of associates leave large firms within the first three years.
A whopping 77 percent of associates leave within five years, according to NALP's latest survey.
That is up sharply from recent years, and the resulting brain drain is wrecking havoc on law firms.
"There's a significant drain on your potential as a firm if you can't mitigate it," Mike, a partner at a 400-plus lawyer Big Apple firm, said of the young legal eagle exodus.
Mike, like many lawyers interviewed for this story, spoke only if neither they or their firm were identified, fearing client losses.
While increased attrition is a typical effect of a relatively healthy economy, Mike claimed, "It'd be a mistake to say it's all driven by the economics."
The big-firm brain drain is also giving partners a major case of agita - forcing them to do the yeoman grunt work usually assigned to associates. In addition, the firms are being forced to scramble to fill the mid-level talent void. Some are even doing the previously unheard of - hiring from second-tier law schools.
John, a fifth year associate at a prominent Wall Street firm, is, like many young lawyers, walking out the door. He is leaving for a coveted in-house position at an investment bank. "I'm just waiting for my bonus," the 31-year-old says.
In fact, the next major wave of legal brain drain will occur over the next few weeks as young lawyers jump ship after collecting their bonus checks.
"It's the mid-levels, the third through fifth years that are leaving, so you're losing people you've spent lots of money on training, and just as they start to run things, they leave, and firms become less profitable," Mike, the partner, adds.
John, the associate ready to leave, notices the effect of the mid-level brain drain at his own firm. Gone, he said, is the traditional pyramid of power, from the numerous first-year associates up to select first-year partners.
"It's gone from a pyramid to a strange hourglass shape," John says. "It's bizarre. Now you'll see deal teams with a partner and a first-year associate, with nobody in the middle."
"You should see the partners," John says. "They're doing the work of mid-levels to pick up the slack. And even though they make over $1 million, they never see their family. There's little reward in that for me."
Tagg Grant, 31, couldn't agree more. The self-described "recovering lawyer" removed himself from firm life last year, as a third-year corporate associate. "I didn't want to sleep on my office floor anymore or wonder if I had a change of underwear somewhere in my file cabinet."
That these Gen-Xers are choosing quality of life over a paycheck doesn't surprise Janelle Wilson, a sociology professor at the University of Minnesota.
"Generation Xers don't measure success or happiness by traditional measures, namely occupational prestige, power and income," she notes. Eva Wisnik, a time-management expert, has been hired by some firms to help associates deal with the lack of free time.
For example, if the partner you are working for doesn't get in until 10, "then go to the gym first thing in the morning," she advises.
SAIRA RAO, a lawyer and writer, recently left a large city law firm. Her debut novel, "Chambermaid," will be published by Grove Press in July.
THIS BLOG POST TAKEN FROM THE NEW YORK POST.
By SAIRA RAO
December 31, 2006 -- The city's largest, most prestigious law firms are suffering from serious brain drain.
Young, Gen-X lawyers in their third to fifth year in the business are walking away from their $200,000-a-year positions in record numbers - at times without another job in view.
The reason? They are unhappy with their Blackberry lifestyle - being tethered to the job 24/7 and having to rush back to the office at a moment's notice when e-mail orders pop up on the ubiquitous PDA.
The exodus of law firm associates is unprecedented, according to the National Association of Law Placement, or NALP, which found that 37 percent of associates leave large firms within the first three years.
A whopping 77 percent of associates leave within five years, according to NALP's latest survey.
That is up sharply from recent years, and the resulting brain drain is wrecking havoc on law firms.
"There's a significant drain on your potential as a firm if you can't mitigate it," Mike, a partner at a 400-plus lawyer Big Apple firm, said of the young legal eagle exodus.
Mike, like many lawyers interviewed for this story, spoke only if neither they or their firm were identified, fearing client losses.
While increased attrition is a typical effect of a relatively healthy economy, Mike claimed, "It'd be a mistake to say it's all driven by the economics."
The big-firm brain drain is also giving partners a major case of agita - forcing them to do the yeoman grunt work usually assigned to associates. In addition, the firms are being forced to scramble to fill the mid-level talent void. Some are even doing the previously unheard of - hiring from second-tier law schools.
John, a fifth year associate at a prominent Wall Street firm, is, like many young lawyers, walking out the door. He is leaving for a coveted in-house position at an investment bank. "I'm just waiting for my bonus," the 31-year-old says.
In fact, the next major wave of legal brain drain will occur over the next few weeks as young lawyers jump ship after collecting their bonus checks.
"It's the mid-levels, the third through fifth years that are leaving, so you're losing people you've spent lots of money on training, and just as they start to run things, they leave, and firms become less profitable," Mike, the partner, adds.
John, the associate ready to leave, notices the effect of the mid-level brain drain at his own firm. Gone, he said, is the traditional pyramid of power, from the numerous first-year associates up to select first-year partners.
"It's gone from a pyramid to a strange hourglass shape," John says. "It's bizarre. Now you'll see deal teams with a partner and a first-year associate, with nobody in the middle."
"You should see the partners," John says. "They're doing the work of mid-levels to pick up the slack. And even though they make over $1 million, they never see their family. There's little reward in that for me."
Tagg Grant, 31, couldn't agree more. The self-described "recovering lawyer" removed himself from firm life last year, as a third-year corporate associate. "I didn't want to sleep on my office floor anymore or wonder if I had a change of underwear somewhere in my file cabinet."
That these Gen-Xers are choosing quality of life over a paycheck doesn't surprise Janelle Wilson, a sociology professor at the University of Minnesota.
"Generation Xers don't measure success or happiness by traditional measures, namely occupational prestige, power and income," she notes. Eva Wisnik, a time-management expert, has been hired by some firms to help associates deal with the lack of free time.
For example, if the partner you are working for doesn't get in until 10, "then go to the gym first thing in the morning," she advises.
SAIRA RAO, a lawyer and writer, recently left a large city law firm. Her debut novel, "Chambermaid," will be published by Grove Press in July.
THIS BLOG POST TAKEN FROM THE NEW YORK POST.
Outsourced legal work offers advantages
ILLINOIS: Paralegals group appeals to Chicago firms to buck trend
BY MOUSHUMI ANAND
Medill News Service
This story ran on nwitimes.com on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 12:47 AM CST
Ruby Prasad's legal research and briefs regularly find their way into courts across the United States despite the fact she has never stepped foot in a U.S. courtroom or anywhere else in the country.
In fact, her workstation is located 8,000 miles away in India.
Prasad is among the 200 lawyers working for Chicago-based Mindcrest Inc., which has an outsourcing facility in Mumbai.
Her company, along with other legal outsourcing firms, is experiencing explosive growth. From just 20 lawyers two years ago, Mindcrest now is 10 times its original size.
According to George Hefferan, the company's vice president and general counsel, Mindcrest plans to add 200 more employees by the end of 2007.
Atlas Legal Research, another legal outsourcing company with offices in Bangalore, India, and Fort Worth, Texas, also grew tenfold in the last two years. The company employed three attorneys in India in 2004. Today, it has 30.
Legal outsourcing companies provide services to legal departments of corporations and law firms from their foreign facilities. The companies, based in India and elsewhere, conduct legal research, document review, due diligence reports on mergers and acquisitions, and administrative work, as well as draft legal documents.
"During my association with an Indian law firm at the start of my career, I realized that I was more interested in doing work relating to legal research and drafting than practicing law," said the 28-year-old Prasad.
India's legal and educational systems help make the country a preferred destination from which to outsource work.
"India has a common law system with similar torts and level of complexity, and that kind of training is sufficient for the work the legal associates do," said Paul Bernstein, president of the Chicago Bar Association's law office technology committee.
He added that the time difference between India and the Unites States -- 11 1/2 hours -- is another advantage for outsourcing jobs. As lawyers finish their work in the United States, a new work day begins for legal associates in India.
According to Bernstein, that enables the associates to get the research ready for attorneys in the United States before they return to work the next morning.
But the outsourcing sector has caused some concern for the Illinois Paralegal Association. The 1,500-member organization's board of directors distributed a letter to 300 Chicago area companies asking them to use paralegals rather than outsourcing.
The letter said work done by paralegals is quality controlled and cost efficient. The letter added that experienced paralegals perform high-level substantive work under direct supervision of an attorney at lower billing rates than attorneys.
But despite the worries, Bernstein said the trend is here to stay. And as for Prasad, she said it was a good career move.
"I visualizes a bright and promising future for those associated with legal process outsourcing services," she said.
“ The above article has been reprinted from www.nwitimes.com and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”
BY MOUSHUMI ANAND
Medill News Service
This story ran on nwitimes.com on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 12:47 AM CST
Ruby Prasad's legal research and briefs regularly find their way into courts across the United States despite the fact she has never stepped foot in a U.S. courtroom or anywhere else in the country.
In fact, her workstation is located 8,000 miles away in India.
Prasad is among the 200 lawyers working for Chicago-based Mindcrest Inc., which has an outsourcing facility in Mumbai.
Her company, along with other legal outsourcing firms, is experiencing explosive growth. From just 20 lawyers two years ago, Mindcrest now is 10 times its original size.
According to George Hefferan, the company's vice president and general counsel, Mindcrest plans to add 200 more employees by the end of 2007.
Atlas Legal Research, another legal outsourcing company with offices in Bangalore, India, and Fort Worth, Texas, also grew tenfold in the last two years. The company employed three attorneys in India in 2004. Today, it has 30.
Legal outsourcing companies provide services to legal departments of corporations and law firms from their foreign facilities. The companies, based in India and elsewhere, conduct legal research, document review, due diligence reports on mergers and acquisitions, and administrative work, as well as draft legal documents.
"During my association with an Indian law firm at the start of my career, I realized that I was more interested in doing work relating to legal research and drafting than practicing law," said the 28-year-old Prasad.
India's legal and educational systems help make the country a preferred destination from which to outsource work.
"India has a common law system with similar torts and level of complexity, and that kind of training is sufficient for the work the legal associates do," said Paul Bernstein, president of the Chicago Bar Association's law office technology committee.
He added that the time difference between India and the Unites States -- 11 1/2 hours -- is another advantage for outsourcing jobs. As lawyers finish their work in the United States, a new work day begins for legal associates in India.
According to Bernstein, that enables the associates to get the research ready for attorneys in the United States before they return to work the next morning.
But the outsourcing sector has caused some concern for the Illinois Paralegal Association. The 1,500-member organization's board of directors distributed a letter to 300 Chicago area companies asking them to use paralegals rather than outsourcing.
The letter said work done by paralegals is quality controlled and cost efficient. The letter added that experienced paralegals perform high-level substantive work under direct supervision of an attorney at lower billing rates than attorneys.
But despite the worries, Bernstein said the trend is here to stay. And as for Prasad, she said it was a good career move.
"I visualizes a bright and promising future for those associated with legal process outsourcing services," she said.
“ The above article has been reprinted from www.nwitimes.com and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Virtual Workers Cut Overhead at Law Firms
A recent article featured in Law Technology News (accessed at www.law.com) profiled a small law firm in Traverse City Michigan which is using virtual workers to cut overhead costs for the firm. The virtual workers are all based in the United States. The article discusses how talented lawyers and paralegals looking to work in non-traditional roles are plentiful. Many graduates of top law firms do not want to work the traditional 60-80 hours a week at a law firm, and virtual employmnet is a viable option. Moreover the Michigan based firm bills its clients 2-3 times the hourly wage paid to these virtual lawyers/legal assistants, resulting in significant bottom line profits for the firm.
The article discusses some of the obstacles or areas of concern involved with hiring virtual workers, including confidentiality and conflict checking--all of which are do able with the help of technology and contractual agreements.
The article discusses some of the obstacles or areas of concern involved with hiring virtual workers, including confidentiality and conflict checking--all of which are do able with the help of technology and contractual agreements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
