Legal BPO/KPO/LPO Services are gaining attention of many traditional as well as non-traditional “Legal Outsourcing Service Providers” (LOSPs). Being on the forefront of providing Legal BPO/KPO/LPO Services, India is witnessing growing number of Companies and Firms entering into this unexplored arena. The same may be tolerable and acceptable when it comes to Legal BPO in India as non-traditional and non-legal Companies and Firms can manage them to some extent. But when it comes to “Specialised”, “Expert”, and “Domain Specific Legal Services” these Companies and Firms cannot provide these services effectively by merely hiring few law students as their workforce. Thus, the Persons, Firms, Companies etc that “assign” various outsourced services must be wary about these Companies and Firms which may be “Financially Sound” but “Knowledgably Bankrupt”. In this work Perry4Law is providing its insight and recommendations to various “Legal Outsourcing Services Seekers” so that they can choose the most “Appropriate” and “Expert” LOSPs in India. These suggestions and recommendations are the mirror image of the “Practice Followed” and “Expertise Possessed” by Perry4Law.
India is a favourite destination for various outsourcing related matters. The same is going to increase further in future. These outsourcing services also require a dedicated and legal framework complaint service providing base. It includes a compliance with the Cyber Law of India, adherence to the protection and enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in India (IPRs in India), etc. These requirements also apply to the following services:
(a) Legal Business Process Outsourcing in India (Legal BPO in India),
(b) Legal Knowledge Process Outsourcing in India (Legal KPO in India),
(c) Legal Process Outsourcing in India (LPO in India),
(d) Other Outsourcing Services in India, etc.
There are certain “Pre-requisites” for a “Successful” Legal BPO, Legal KPO and LPO base in India. These pre-requisites are easy to mention but difficult to achieve. Perry4Law is committed to provide “High Quality” and “Globally Renowned” Techno-Legal, Managerial, Financial services in association with its National and International Associates and Partners. It recommends the following “Parameters” that LOSPs must possess:
(a) Capacity: The Legal Outsourcing Service Provider (LOSP) must be “Capable” of providing the Services claimed to be within its competency. This is more so vis-à-vis LPO and Legal KPO Services.
(b) Legal Potential: If possible, the service seekers must “Choose” and “Prefer” the Companies and Firms that are “actually dealing in Legal matters”. The trend of hiring few law graduates and opening of a Legal BPO Department by Traditional and Non-Legal Companies and Firms may not be very effective when it comes to KPO and LPO matters. It is always preferable to hire the services of those who are “Exclusively Specialising” in the Services provided.
(c) Domain Specific Services: Legal KPO and LPO are “Domain Specific Services” and the service seekers must make it sure that the persons ultimately handling the matter are “Experts” or “Well-Qualified” to manage the work. For instance, Legal BPO may be taken care of by simple law graduate from any law University but when it comes to Legal KPO and LPO, a “Master Degree” in Law from the “Premier Law Institution” is an “Additional Safeguard”.
(d) Security Measures: The growing use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in India (ICT in India) has its adverse ramifications as well. Thus, the LOSPs must ensure a “Safe” and “Secure” ICT Infrastructure that must be capable of providing an “Uninterrupted”, “Safe” and “Secure” online support. For instance, Perry4Law’s ICT and Cyber Security initiative titled as PTLB TM/SM is managing various Techno-Legal issues associated with the ICT and Cyber Security including protection of “Critical ICT Infrastructure in India”. This has provided Perry4Law the additional advantage of acquiring and possessing “Expertise” in “Techno-Legal Matters that are bound to arise in the near future.
(e) Data Protection and Privacy Preservation: Data Protection and Privacy Preservation are essential for a “Safe” and “Secure” Legal BPO/KPO/LPO platform. For instance, at Perry4Law every possible care is taken to protect and preserve the “Database” and “Details” of our “Clients” in the best possible manner.
(f) Credentials: The service seekers must always check the “Credentials” of the LOSPs before assigning any work to them. The use of search engines is a good option to have an “Idea” about various LOSPs.
(g) Research acumen: The search engines are also very useful to ascertain the “Research Acumen” of various LOSPs that lies at the heart of various Legal BPO/KPO/LPO services.
(h) National and International Recognition: The National and International recognition of the LOSP is a very crucial factor while outsourcing legal work. A LOSP possessing National and International “Reputation” is a much “Safer Bet” than “Self-Claimed Experts”.
These are some of the “Factors/Parameters” that may be considered by service seekers while outsourcing Legal BPO/KPO/LPO assignments to LOSPs. They are neither “Exhaustive” nor “Conclusive” but are illustrative and suggestive only. There may be other factors as well that may play a “Conclusive Role” in the Legal BPO/KPO/LPO game. Besides, “Personal Preferences” and “Relationships” may be there that suit the requirements of a particular service seeker. These “Parameters” only reflect the “Domain Specific” and “Extensive” Knowledge and Research Capabilities of Companies and Firms like Perry4Law. With more and more International and National Partners, Perry4Law is “Confident” that it will go a long way in making India a “Favourite”, “Safe”, “Secure” and “Reliable” business destination in general and Legal BPO/KPO/LPO Provider in particular. We also hope that various initiatives of Perry4Law would go a long way in providing a sound “Techno-Legal Support” to India so that it can match the International Standards and Norms. At the same time, these initiatives aptly ensure that the “Data Protection and Privacy Requirements” are duly met so that Legal BPO in India, Legal KPO in India and LPO in India can thrive to their level best.
© Praveen Dalal. All rights reserved with the author.
* Advocate, Arbitrator and Consultant, Supreme Court of India.
Managing Partner-Perry4Law (First Techno-Legal and ICT Firm, New Delhi, India).
LL.M, Ph.D –Cyber Forensics (Pursuing).
Contact at: perry4law@yahoo.com , pd37@rediffmail.com
“ The above article has been reprinted from http://reclaiming-india.blogspot.com/ and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Much Ado About Nothing
In the past few weeks, India was witnessing a new form of censorship. The works of a fine arts student of Maharaja Sayajirao University of Vadodara were vandalized by communal activists on the ground that student has negatively portrayed the deities and there by hurt the religious sentiments of the community. While the artists are making a hue and cry over the “trespass” over their creative domain, the so-called moral watch dogs are agitated about the “attack” on their personal beliefs. On which side, does the truth lie? Obviously, this standoff between creativity and intolerance is nothing new to our country. Being a pluralistic society, we have always been open to diverse interpretations of art and culture and eloquently debated the metes and bounds of artistic freedom. However, the frequency and decibels of such dissenting voices has gone up in recent times and the way the protests were carried out defies the democratic ethos and reasonable restraint expected from a secular pluralistic society. The erstwhile land of diversity, brotherhood and tolerance has suddenly become the abode of some temperamental touch-me-nots whose religious sensitivities are hurt at the drop of a hat!
The Bizarre Paradox
India, as a melting pot of cultures is home to a vivid and versatile artistic tradition, which is subjected to all sorts of experimentations. Every artistic work bears the indelible imprimatur of the artist’s passions, choices, predilections and prejudices, and it is the manifestation of his/her wildest dreams and fantasies. We cannot expect them to be realistic and conforming all the time. If he/she is asked to get in to the straight jackets of contemporary morality, it is like asking a sculptor to chisel the statue to fit in to a particular mould, a shape agreed to by every one. But then is the notion of contemporary morality reflects such unanimous choice or a collective conscience of the connoisseurs of art? How can it be for such a diverse and distinct society? Artists draw flak whenever they stray away from the trodden path and try to revisit the settled notions and beliefs. We cannot insist that an art form should neatly fit in to some pigeonholes of contemporary notions of religion and individual beliefs. The society should criticize, debate and discuss an artistic work and should very well decide to accept or reject it. But it should stop there.
The Buck Stops Here
Once again, religious iconography has become a burning issue. When individual beliefs feels threatened by the divergent voices and need reassurances, it is setting a different precedent for India’s age-old virtue of tolerance. It seems the pluralistic state is on the verge of an identity crisis. However, this is not the dead end of tolerance in a democracy. We should clearly give space to divergent opinions as long as we have the freedom to accept or reject it. The constitution clearly stipulates how much noise we can make by defining the freedom of expression and the reasonable restrictions. When voice of dissent relegates into irrational noises of intolerance with preachy overtones, the constitutional guarantees are jeopardized. Moreover, we have penal laws to check whether artistic freedom relegates to licentiousness. The law contemplates such transgression only when there is deliberate and malicious intention for out raging the religious feelings. In Vadodara, the exhibition was not meant for the public and it was more a part of internal assessment, conducted with in the precincts of the University. The activists have no locus standi to question the internal matters of a University.
And finally, we should do a reality check as to how much these moral brigade were able to achieve. Remember the hullabaloo over the dress code imposed by Anna University, smoking in films has all failed to achieve the desired results. Even films which break away from stereo types are not spared. For instance, the film Nishabd which tells the story of a 60 year old man falls for his daughter’s friend was accused of sending the wrong signals. Is the average Indian waiting to be strayed into prohibited territories at the drop of a hat? What do we achieve by making there irrational noises? Of course, freedom of expression is an easy escape route to the artist. But it is a true test of tolerance to the society. Nevertheless, if we insist that artists should exercise restraint ignoring the compulsions of creativity, what would be the end product like? Living in a democratic secular society, the compulsions we face are quite different as the demarcations are too close and any mix up will trigger a controversy. For the same reason, what happened in Vadodara cannot be written off as one odd incident. Political forces are brewing a deadly concoction by mixing religion and politics in poisonous proportions. To determine what is objectionable and what is not by defining contemporary mortality is too dangerous a task to be left to the discretion of communal forces that holds a jaundiced view of religion. Culture offers a shared platform where every one has their due. Obviously, this is the most prized feature of a democracy, that every one has an opinion. And it has the flip side too- that every one has got a veto power. True democracy lies in the reconciliation of these conflicting notions. And unfortunately, we have forgotten the best means of squaring off the differences. Universities are laboratories of experimentation and academic discussions and debates as part of the curriculum should be left alone. Now the scenario is cluttered by too many voices, and it needs time for the heat and dust to set in. After all, why do we need to join some opinionated bandwagons to determine the metes and bounds of artistic creativity? Much ado about nothing. Art transcends religion, culture and other human barriers. If one’s belief is genuine and convictions are strong, it cannot be shaken by a different portrayal by an artist.
-
Seema Sarathkumar
Staff Attorney of legalEase Solutions LLC
The Bizarre Paradox
India, as a melting pot of cultures is home to a vivid and versatile artistic tradition, which is subjected to all sorts of experimentations. Every artistic work bears the indelible imprimatur of the artist’s passions, choices, predilections and prejudices, and it is the manifestation of his/her wildest dreams and fantasies. We cannot expect them to be realistic and conforming all the time. If he/she is asked to get in to the straight jackets of contemporary morality, it is like asking a sculptor to chisel the statue to fit in to a particular mould, a shape agreed to by every one. But then is the notion of contemporary morality reflects such unanimous choice or a collective conscience of the connoisseurs of art? How can it be for such a diverse and distinct society? Artists draw flak whenever they stray away from the trodden path and try to revisit the settled notions and beliefs. We cannot insist that an art form should neatly fit in to some pigeonholes of contemporary notions of religion and individual beliefs. The society should criticize, debate and discuss an artistic work and should very well decide to accept or reject it. But it should stop there.
The Buck Stops Here
Once again, religious iconography has become a burning issue. When individual beliefs feels threatened by the divergent voices and need reassurances, it is setting a different precedent for India’s age-old virtue of tolerance. It seems the pluralistic state is on the verge of an identity crisis. However, this is not the dead end of tolerance in a democracy. We should clearly give space to divergent opinions as long as we have the freedom to accept or reject it. The constitution clearly stipulates how much noise we can make by defining the freedom of expression and the reasonable restrictions. When voice of dissent relegates into irrational noises of intolerance with preachy overtones, the constitutional guarantees are jeopardized. Moreover, we have penal laws to check whether artistic freedom relegates to licentiousness. The law contemplates such transgression only when there is deliberate and malicious intention for out raging the religious feelings. In Vadodara, the exhibition was not meant for the public and it was more a part of internal assessment, conducted with in the precincts of the University. The activists have no locus standi to question the internal matters of a University.
And finally, we should do a reality check as to how much these moral brigade were able to achieve. Remember the hullabaloo over the dress code imposed by Anna University, smoking in films has all failed to achieve the desired results. Even films which break away from stereo types are not spared. For instance, the film Nishabd which tells the story of a 60 year old man falls for his daughter’s friend was accused of sending the wrong signals. Is the average Indian waiting to be strayed into prohibited territories at the drop of a hat? What do we achieve by making there irrational noises? Of course, freedom of expression is an easy escape route to the artist. But it is a true test of tolerance to the society. Nevertheless, if we insist that artists should exercise restraint ignoring the compulsions of creativity, what would be the end product like? Living in a democratic secular society, the compulsions we face are quite different as the demarcations are too close and any mix up will trigger a controversy. For the same reason, what happened in Vadodara cannot be written off as one odd incident. Political forces are brewing a deadly concoction by mixing religion and politics in poisonous proportions. To determine what is objectionable and what is not by defining contemporary mortality is too dangerous a task to be left to the discretion of communal forces that holds a jaundiced view of religion. Culture offers a shared platform where every one has their due. Obviously, this is the most prized feature of a democracy, that every one has an opinion. And it has the flip side too- that every one has got a veto power. True democracy lies in the reconciliation of these conflicting notions. And unfortunately, we have forgotten the best means of squaring off the differences. Universities are laboratories of experimentation and academic discussions and debates as part of the curriculum should be left alone. Now the scenario is cluttered by too many voices, and it needs time for the heat and dust to set in. After all, why do we need to join some opinionated bandwagons to determine the metes and bounds of artistic creativity? Much ado about nothing. Art transcends religion, culture and other human barriers. If one’s belief is genuine and convictions are strong, it cannot be shaken by a different portrayal by an artist.
-
Seema Sarathkumar
Staff Attorney of legalEase Solutions LLC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
