By Ursula Furi-Perry
Customer service, typing and transcription, information technology-outsourcing has been increasingly popular in many industries. It wasn't long before the legal field caught on. Law firms and legal departments have begun to outsource projects for increased efficiency and decreased costs.
Yet outsourcing isn't entirely novel in the law. For example, law firms have long referred unfamiliar projects to other firms that specialize in them. "Outsourcing is in effect subcontracting," explained William Bierce, principal at the New York firm Bierce & Kamerson, P.C., and publisher of the Outsourcing Law and Business Journal. "Outsourcing has been going on forever," Bierce said, but new processes "enable people to identify their business processes and treatments…avoid waste, and outsource items that can't be performed effectively [in-house]." Both domestically and internationally, new legal outsourcing firms have strung up, and existing firms are beginning to carve out a piece of the legal pie.
Tasks that are the best fit for outsourcing include electronic legal research, drafting standard agreements, and correspondence. "We provide market research, business research…intellectual property research, legal research, and emerging-markets research," said Alok Aggarwal, founder and chairman of Evalueserve, Inc., a company focused largely on legal outsourcing. A project is probably right for outsourcing "if it doesn't involve special judgment," said Bierce. "Outsourcing is best for highly repetitive, simple, and structured processes." Large and multi-office law firms, as well as legal departments of large corporations, tend to be outsourcing companies' top clients; "they have an aggregation of demand for this type of work," said Bierce.
As a result of outsourcing, firms may become more efficient and spend less, although actual savings depends on the level of work, the quality of service provided, and the ability to recoup costs from clients, among other factors. Outsourcing may also allow legal professionals to perform jobs of a higher value to clients, freeing them from mundane tasks. "This will definitely help corporations in containing their costs and also help the lawyers and paralegals in the U.S. in moving up the value chain and providing higher value-added work to their client," Aggarwal said. But with subcontracting comes risk. "The general contractor is liable for all failures of the subcontractor and all of the problems the subcontractor creates," said Bierce. Some potential problems may include conflicts of interest, revealing client confidentiality, practicing law without a license, lack of supervision of non-attorney legal staff, and even malpractice. Therefore, firms have to "design a process that mitigates the risk to the client," said Bierce. Implementing security guidelines in communications, encrypting confidential information, and restricting access to computers are just some ways to do so.
Firms are not the only ones worried about potential problems: with outsourcing quickly becoming popular among some law firms, legal staff may also be concerned about the effects outsourcing will have on their positions. "Paralegals who've been traditionally the workforce to manage redundant operations are at risk," Bierce believes. Transcription, document drafting and management, and much legal research seem to be the first few tasks to go. As a result, legal staff who largely perform those duties must be able to learn and grow in their jobs. "Identify your skill sets in a manner that makes you better trained in the law, and work with management to identify ways for getting better," recommended Bierce. "You lose your job if you don't grow and if your business process is not effectively designed for the process to which it's harnessed."
For capable, efficient, and versatile legal staff, there's likely little to worry about. "I do not think that this will revolutionize the American legal system in any big way," predicted Aggarwal. "The amount of 'offshoring' that will happen in this area during the next decade will [correspond to] approximately 2% of the number of lawyers and paralegals that will be employed in the U.S. in 2015." In fact, many firms outsource what Aggarwal calls "overflow work," which may help relieve legal staff from overcrowded dockets. For able legal professionals, that may actually mean work of a higher value and better quality.
"The above article has been reprinted from www.lawcrossing.com and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Outlook for Legal Outsourcing after Democratic Sweep of Congress
Outlook for Legal Outsourcing after Democratic Sweep of Congress
Tariq Hafeez, Esq.
President, LegalEase Solutions LLC
With the change of control of the US House and Senate from Republican to Democrat, the future of outsourcing and offshoring may be called into question. The Democratic Party won a comprehensive victory in Congress, and many candidates won local races on a platform against, among other things, the outsourcing of American jobs to Asia. Indeed some political commentators have predicted that globalization-especially outsourcing—is about to become the prime suspect in Congress for much that ails the nation. Moreover, in many industrial cities nationwide like Detroit, where unions/organized labor hold considerable sway over the public and were in many cases instrumental in the Democratic victory at all levels of politics[1], they are demanding legislation to limit outsourcing such as changes in the tax code to reduce job outsourcing.
With that in mind, what is the outsourcing industry saying about the impact of the elections on outsourcing? Is the industry worried? To the surprise of many, the industry as a whole is not much worried with the general sentiment being that irrespective of Americans’ political preferences; outsourcing in the services industry will continue as outsourcing today is a sector of increasingly higher visibility and acceptance. Outsourcing of business services such as law, accounting and business research is continuing to grow both qualitatively and quantitatively. To make the point more poignant, just recently a US Senator, Frank Morse of Portland, Oregon, read out a speech on ‘The Impact of Globalization on Oregon Economy’ prepared by a Bangalore based BPO[2]. Outsourcing is being normalized and accepted at the highest levels.
Notwithstanding the political implications of the Democratic sweep on outsourcing in general, the legal outsourcing industry will most likely not be significantly affected Why? First, the cries against outsourcing focus on jobs lost in middle America amongst the middle class. While in reality many lawyers may find themselves amongst the middle class, the profession as a whole continues to hold itself out as an elite profession outside the sphere of middle class America. The types of jobs that fuel much of the fire when outsourced are those affecting the economically marginalized in this country: the blue collar and middle class workers in manufacturing jobs. Case in point: Detroit, where automobile jobs being offshored to Mexico and Asia have bred a deep rooted opposition to outsourcing. One of the more recent and loudest opponents of outsourcing, Lou Dobbs has entitled his best-selling book, “War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back.” Again, the legal profession would likely fall into the category of warmonger “Big Business/Special Interest” that is out to get the middle class, rather than the victim.
Moreover, while legal outsourcing is in its relative infancy, the one body which could have a direct impact on the industry (other than the IRS) is the legal community (much more affectionately known as “the Bar”). The Bar has voiced little to no concern over legal outsourcing. The Bar, moreover, is hardly homogenous and consists of attorneys in the millionaire and billionaire clubs along with idealistic public interest attorneys who make a lot less than most people realize. In summary, the legal community has not made a loud noise about legal outsourcing in the past few years, and the change of politics in Washington DC will likely not change the position of the Bar on outsourcing.
What does the future hold for legal outsourcing then? Only the future will tell, but the change of guard in Congress will most likely not turn the page on this burgeoning industry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Union workers voted Democratic in the House races, 67% to 30%. And others in union households voted almost as strongly Democratic, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and the networks. See the Detroit Free Press, Nov. 14, 2006 “With Dems in power, labor ramps up gameplan” Will Lester
[2] See Times of India, Nov. 13, 2006, “US Senator Outsources Speech to India” Mini Joseph Tejaswi
Tariq Hafeez, Esq.
President, LegalEase Solutions LLC
With the change of control of the US House and Senate from Republican to Democrat, the future of outsourcing and offshoring may be called into question. The Democratic Party won a comprehensive victory in Congress, and many candidates won local races on a platform against, among other things, the outsourcing of American jobs to Asia. Indeed some political commentators have predicted that globalization-especially outsourcing—is about to become the prime suspect in Congress for much that ails the nation. Moreover, in many industrial cities nationwide like Detroit, where unions/organized labor hold considerable sway over the public and were in many cases instrumental in the Democratic victory at all levels of politics[1], they are demanding legislation to limit outsourcing such as changes in the tax code to reduce job outsourcing.
With that in mind, what is the outsourcing industry saying about the impact of the elections on outsourcing? Is the industry worried? To the surprise of many, the industry as a whole is not much worried with the general sentiment being that irrespective of Americans’ political preferences; outsourcing in the services industry will continue as outsourcing today is a sector of increasingly higher visibility and acceptance. Outsourcing of business services such as law, accounting and business research is continuing to grow both qualitatively and quantitatively. To make the point more poignant, just recently a US Senator, Frank Morse of Portland, Oregon, read out a speech on ‘The Impact of Globalization on Oregon Economy’ prepared by a Bangalore based BPO[2]. Outsourcing is being normalized and accepted at the highest levels.
Notwithstanding the political implications of the Democratic sweep on outsourcing in general, the legal outsourcing industry will most likely not be significantly affected Why? First, the cries against outsourcing focus on jobs lost in middle America amongst the middle class. While in reality many lawyers may find themselves amongst the middle class, the profession as a whole continues to hold itself out as an elite profession outside the sphere of middle class America. The types of jobs that fuel much of the fire when outsourced are those affecting the economically marginalized in this country: the blue collar and middle class workers in manufacturing jobs. Case in point: Detroit, where automobile jobs being offshored to Mexico and Asia have bred a deep rooted opposition to outsourcing. One of the more recent and loudest opponents of outsourcing, Lou Dobbs has entitled his best-selling book, “War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back.” Again, the legal profession would likely fall into the category of warmonger “Big Business/Special Interest” that is out to get the middle class, rather than the victim.
Moreover, while legal outsourcing is in its relative infancy, the one body which could have a direct impact on the industry (other than the IRS) is the legal community (much more affectionately known as “the Bar”). The Bar has voiced little to no concern over legal outsourcing. The Bar, moreover, is hardly homogenous and consists of attorneys in the millionaire and billionaire clubs along with idealistic public interest attorneys who make a lot less than most people realize. In summary, the legal community has not made a loud noise about legal outsourcing in the past few years, and the change of politics in Washington DC will likely not change the position of the Bar on outsourcing.
What does the future hold for legal outsourcing then? Only the future will tell, but the change of guard in Congress will most likely not turn the page on this burgeoning industry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Union workers voted Democratic in the House races, 67% to 30%. And others in union households voted almost as strongly Democratic, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and the networks. See the Detroit Free Press, Nov. 14, 2006 “With Dems in power, labor ramps up gameplan” Will Lester
[2] See Times of India, Nov. 13, 2006, “US Senator Outsources Speech to India” Mini Joseph Tejaswi
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Commentary: Outsourcing attorneys can save money, but concerns
St. Louis Daily Record & St. Louis Countian, Oct 3, 2006 by Molly F. Dilbeck, J.D
Managing your practice.
You've been there. Your computer inexplicably stopped working, and now you have to call the 1-800 number to figure out just what is the matter.
When your call is answered, you find yourself speaking to someone on the opposite side of the globe. Why? Because the computer company outsourced its tech-support staff overseas.
Now, imagine calling a 1-800 number and being connected to someone in New Delhi or Tel Aviv in an effort to discuss the finer points of your motion for summary disposition.
Sound farfetched? Maybe not.
In our ever-shrinking world, more and more companies are shipping work out and overseas in an effort to cut costs.
For example, just recently, DuPont announced in Business Weekly its decision to open an office in Manila, staffed by 30 Filipino attorneys who will be analyzing documents for pending litigation and saving an anticipated $6 million in the process. The cost is next to nothing, since most legal outsourcing firms charge between $20 - $75 an hour, depending on the type of work and urgency of the project.
Further, these firms promote their ability to save attorneys the most valuable asset of all - their time.
By farming out legal research, these outsourcing businesses advertise their ability to enable attorneys to practice more efficiently and take on more work with less stress and output.
Money saved and ease of use, however, don't assuage all of the concerns that can arise from the mere mention of outsourcing. The idea of outsourcing causes some to conjure worst-case scenarios, such as the loss of U.S. jobs, or the difficulty in communicating with a person in another country regarding a problem.
Many different worries crop up when the work being outsourced is legal in nature - including confidentiality, ethics, and the relevance of lawyers and support staff in a constantly-changing legal community.
Not surprisingly, legal outsourcing companies don't see the cause for alarm.
In fact, these businesses contend they only want to help attorneys be more efficient, expand their practices and save money, not displace them. Detroit-based LegalEase Solutions, LLC, is one such company.
Founded in 2004, LegalEase was formed with the aim of providing firms with a "competitive edge by adding to their capacity without an increase in their infrastructure costs," says the business' president and general counsel Tariq Hafeez.
Though LegalEase is headquartered in Michigan, it also has an office in India, where much of its work is done.
Moreover, much of LegalEase's staff is comprised of Indian attorneys.
In addition to its U.S. attorneys, LegalEase's "offshore attorneys are qualified from the top law schools in India," the company said in a 2005 interview with the Detroit Legal News. Of course, the idea of a non-American attorney working on a legal document might alarm some attorneys and clients, but LegalEase stresses it conducts "a very stringent and robust initial training program on U.S. constitutional law and the use of online legal databases like LexisNexis."
As "foreign" as it may seem to American lawyers, using foreign and foreign-based attorneys to do American legal research is not unique to LegalEase. Many companies are doing it.
Dhraj Aggarwal of India's Economical Services says his company employs the services of Indian attorneys who are "graduates of the top law schools of India," but "can work on the law of most countries" because the company is an "Internet-based research organization."
Touting India as one of the "most preferred outsourcing destinations," Aggarwal stated his company was capable of serving as a "back-office to U.S.-based attorneys" by providing them with "high- quality, low-cost work." Hafeez concurs, saying his staff functions as "virtual associates" who are "available 24/7."
This availability allows attorneys to then "take on more work or spend time doing what's most important to their practice," without having to increase their overhead costs, he explained.
Further, Hafeez points out each project his attorneys work on is checked and re-checked before an American attorney employed by LegalEase gives the go-ahead for the work to be given to an attorney- client.
Nevertheless, Hafeez cautioned that "the onus lies on the attorneys to review all the work we provide them before they choose to use it."
For those who are interested in off-shoring legal work for cost and efficiency reasons, but are not entirely comfortable with the idea of sending sensitive legal material into the hands of a non- U.S. attorney, the legal outsourcing market provides at least one option.
According to CEO and managing counsel Steven Ettinger, Israel- based SuperLaw not only helps small firms "work larger" by providing them with the "big-firm advantage," but boasts a staff of nearly 50 American attorneys who live and work in Israel.
He explained that all SuperLaw "counselors are American law school graduates, admitted in at least one state, and average more than 10 years of experience."
Managing your practice.
You've been there. Your computer inexplicably stopped working, and now you have to call the 1-800 number to figure out just what is the matter.
When your call is answered, you find yourself speaking to someone on the opposite side of the globe. Why? Because the computer company outsourced its tech-support staff overseas.
Now, imagine calling a 1-800 number and being connected to someone in New Delhi or Tel Aviv in an effort to discuss the finer points of your motion for summary disposition.
Sound farfetched? Maybe not.
In our ever-shrinking world, more and more companies are shipping work out and overseas in an effort to cut costs.
For example, just recently, DuPont announced in Business Weekly its decision to open an office in Manila, staffed by 30 Filipino attorneys who will be analyzing documents for pending litigation and saving an anticipated $6 million in the process. The cost is next to nothing, since most legal outsourcing firms charge between $20 - $75 an hour, depending on the type of work and urgency of the project.
Further, these firms promote their ability to save attorneys the most valuable asset of all - their time.
By farming out legal research, these outsourcing businesses advertise their ability to enable attorneys to practice more efficiently and take on more work with less stress and output.
Money saved and ease of use, however, don't assuage all of the concerns that can arise from the mere mention of outsourcing. The idea of outsourcing causes some to conjure worst-case scenarios, such as the loss of U.S. jobs, or the difficulty in communicating with a person in another country regarding a problem.
Many different worries crop up when the work being outsourced is legal in nature - including confidentiality, ethics, and the relevance of lawyers and support staff in a constantly-changing legal community.
Not surprisingly, legal outsourcing companies don't see the cause for alarm.
In fact, these businesses contend they only want to help attorneys be more efficient, expand their practices and save money, not displace them. Detroit-based LegalEase Solutions, LLC, is one such company.
Founded in 2004, LegalEase was formed with the aim of providing firms with a "competitive edge by adding to their capacity without an increase in their infrastructure costs," says the business' president and general counsel Tariq Hafeez.
Though LegalEase is headquartered in Michigan, it also has an office in India, where much of its work is done.
Moreover, much of LegalEase's staff is comprised of Indian attorneys.
In addition to its U.S. attorneys, LegalEase's "offshore attorneys are qualified from the top law schools in India," the company said in a 2005 interview with the Detroit Legal News. Of course, the idea of a non-American attorney working on a legal document might alarm some attorneys and clients, but LegalEase stresses it conducts "a very stringent and robust initial training program on U.S. constitutional law and the use of online legal databases like LexisNexis."
As "foreign" as it may seem to American lawyers, using foreign and foreign-based attorneys to do American legal research is not unique to LegalEase. Many companies are doing it.
Dhraj Aggarwal of India's Economical Services says his company employs the services of Indian attorneys who are "graduates of the top law schools of India," but "can work on the law of most countries" because the company is an "Internet-based research organization."
Touting India as one of the "most preferred outsourcing destinations," Aggarwal stated his company was capable of serving as a "back-office to U.S.-based attorneys" by providing them with "high- quality, low-cost work." Hafeez concurs, saying his staff functions as "virtual associates" who are "available 24/7."
This availability allows attorneys to then "take on more work or spend time doing what's most important to their practice," without having to increase their overhead costs, he explained.
Further, Hafeez points out each project his attorneys work on is checked and re-checked before an American attorney employed by LegalEase gives the go-ahead for the work to be given to an attorney- client.
Nevertheless, Hafeez cautioned that "the onus lies on the attorneys to review all the work we provide them before they choose to use it."
For those who are interested in off-shoring legal work for cost and efficiency reasons, but are not entirely comfortable with the idea of sending sensitive legal material into the hands of a non- U.S. attorney, the legal outsourcing market provides at least one option.
According to CEO and managing counsel Steven Ettinger, Israel- based SuperLaw not only helps small firms "work larger" by providing them with the "big-firm advantage," but boasts a staff of nearly 50 American attorneys who live and work in Israel.
He explained that all SuperLaw "counselors are American law school graduates, admitted in at least one state, and average more than 10 years of experience."
Technology and Legal secretaries
Ron Friedmann
President
Prism Legal Consulting, Inc.
ron@prismlegal.com
www.prismlegal.com
Starting in the early 1990s, I noticed that secretarial work was changing as a result of widespread lawyer use of PCs. Yet I have seen few articles about this much less smart management reaction.
Already in 1991, I thought secretarial roles needed re-thinking. By 2003, when the main reaction seemed to be tinkering with the ratio, I wrote The Future of Legal Secretaries (Legal Times, May 2003). It suggests testing the concept of secretarial teams.
That article emphasizes matching needs and resources more effectively. Today, law firms have a new option to do so and, at the same time, recast the role of the legal secretary. Earlier this year CBF, a secretarial and document processing outsourcing company, retained me to write a white paper. In it, I explain why outsourcing some secretarial and document processing tasks makes sense. The reasoning applies to many law firm operations.
It’s a mistake to assume that full-time secretaries (plus temps) is the best decision. Outsourcing may be wrong - but decide that consciously, not by inertia.
The issues here affect CIOs two ways. First, if firms do outsource as suggested, that will affect training and systems. And second, the underlying reasoning may drive you to outsource some tech functions.
The chart above illustrates how outsourcing could change secretarial roles. This change and forming teams are not mutually exclusive. In fact, outsourcing can support a team approach.
The above article was published by Mr. Ron Friedman on 11/16/2006 in www.prismlegal.com. and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”
Legal Outsourcing
Indiatimes Id:nair.uma
Legal Outsourcing is obviously the next big thing, but the increase in growth of the market has not been rapid. Quality is still an issue and many law firms, legal departments are still on tenderhooks when it comes to trusting legal work to offshoring companies. In itself companies like LegalEase Solutions LLC (www.legaleasesolutions.com) have found it a challenging task to ensure that every one of their projects meets the exacting and demanding standards of the US legal system. It is a complex and very hands on process to continue exercising quality controls at all levels. 1/3rd of the work undertaken by LegalEase is still done in the US. LegalEase follows stringent quality control procedures. Once a client has contacted LegalEase Solutions and their information is collected, the information is transferred over to lawyers in India, the project is then researched and prepared by them and reviewed by the US attorneys. Quality Check 1 involves a 15 Step Check Performed by Offshore Attorneys. Quality Check 2 is performed by the Managing offshore Attorneys. Quality Check 3 Performed by the US attorneys. Quality Check 4 is performed by the Managing US attorneys. After this it is given back to the client for their review and use of the product. The India-based attorneys have access to Lexis Nexis and other online research tools in order to complete projects from any jurisdiction. Here are a few reasons why you can expect world-class quality from LegalEase o Use of Lexis Nexis and other premier online research tools o All cases cited in any legal memorandum or pleading will be shepardized o All products citing case law will be accompanied by a list of shepardized cases—so you can always be certain that the cases are good law o All finished products are reviewed by US attorneys o We only hire experienced legal professionals in India with a minimum of 5 years legal practice For more information on LegalEase Solutions L.L.C., call1-866-534-6177 or visit the Web site at www.legaleasesolutions.com.
Monday, April 03, 2006 11:31:33 am
Legal Outsourcing is obviously the next big thing, but the increase in growth of the market has not been rapid. Quality is still an issue and many law firms, legal departments are still on tenderhooks when it comes to trusting legal work to offshoring companies. In itself companies like LegalEase Solutions LLC (www.legaleasesolutions.com) have found it a challenging task to ensure that every one of their projects meets the exacting and demanding standards of the US legal system. It is a complex and very hands on process to continue exercising quality controls at all levels. 1/3rd of the work undertaken by LegalEase is still done in the US. LegalEase follows stringent quality control procedures. Once a client has contacted LegalEase Solutions and their information is collected, the information is transferred over to lawyers in India, the project is then researched and prepared by them and reviewed by the US attorneys. Quality Check 1 involves a 15 Step Check Performed by Offshore Attorneys. Quality Check 2 is performed by the Managing offshore Attorneys. Quality Check 3 Performed by the US attorneys. Quality Check 4 is performed by the Managing US attorneys. After this it is given back to the client for their review and use of the product. The India-based attorneys have access to Lexis Nexis and other online research tools in order to complete projects from any jurisdiction. Here are a few reasons why you can expect world-class quality from LegalEase o Use of Lexis Nexis and other premier online research tools o All cases cited in any legal memorandum or pleading will be shepardized o All products citing case law will be accompanied by a list of shepardized cases—so you can always be certain that the cases are good law o All finished products are reviewed by US attorneys o We only hire experienced legal professionals in India with a minimum of 5 years legal practice For more information on LegalEase Solutions L.L.C., call1-866-534-6177 or visit the Web site at www.legaleasesolutions.com.
Monday, April 03, 2006 11:31:33 am
The Inside Scoop on Law Firm Outsourcing
Karen Asner
Although law firms have traditionally outsourced services like security, travel or mail, the allure of Thomas Friedman's "flat" world has some law firms looking hard at whether to outsource other functions.[FOOTNOTE 1] The options are no longer limited to an outside vendor running a service in-house. Instead, firms face an impressive array of options offered around the globe, from Chennai, India, to Wheeling, W.Va. Navigating these decisions requires thoughtful consideration of your business goals and careful planning.
LET YOUR BUSINESS GOALS GUIDE THE STRATEGY
Review of outsourcing options is most often triggered by the desire for cost reduction. Although the lure of potential cost savings and operational efficiency is a powerful siren, outsourcing can offer numerous other benefits that further important business goals:
· Outsourcing can enhance service to clients and lawyers through greater operational coverage and better product area expertise.
· Outsourcing can free up management to focus on other strategic areas for the firm.
· Third-party vendors are more focused on a particular product or service and are more likely to stay abreast of the technological changes and other industry innovations that will further improve service and lower costs.
When White & Case expanded its outsourcing arrangements to include its word processing, creative design and publishing functions, the critical factor aside from cost-efficiencies was the significant potential for improving client and lawyer service. By moving these functions to an outside global vendor, the firm eliminated duplication of staff and equipment, consolidated and cross-trained staff, improved cost efficiencies and set a better firmwide support platform to leverage its global capabilities and 24/7 service. Smaller offices are now able to access improved service on a 24/7 platform that notably upgrades their ability to serve both lawyers and clients.
Similarly, White & Case's objective behind outsourcing a truly professional concierge and conference management service, commensurate with its newly upgraded New York conference center, was to create an environment that supports the firm's client service ethic. Its clients now experience a seamless welcoming reception service, upgraded audiovisual support and streamlined conference booking.
HOW TO EVALUATE THE ARRAY OF OPTIONS
Although cost savings are often touted as the most obvious and achievable benefit of outsourcing, prepare an apples-to-apples comparison of the costs and benefits of keeping a function in-house, or insourcing (keeping it in-house but moving to a lower cost location), versus outsourcing.
Carefully research a vendor's history, capabilities and competitors and definitely follow up with their references. Speak to your peers at other law firms to see what works and doesn't and get additional referrals. Friends outside of the legal profession can share a wealth of information from their experience, since corporations have been outsourcing functions for longer.
Depending on the function, it may be essential to use vendors with law firm experience because they will be familiar with handling confidential information and complying with particular ethical rules.
MANAGE YOUR OUTSOURCING STRATEGY AND PROCESS
Once the vendor has been selected, a detailed roll-out plan must be created. Thoroughly evaluate the work product during the transition phase -- including setting up a "shadow" team that performs the same tasks for comparison. Consider having an on-site project manager from your vendor who will be available for daily communications and who will understand your business.
It must be acknowledged that outsourcing decisions always make staff anxious -- and understandably so. It's crucial, therefore, that staff who are affected by the decision, whether they are moving or staying, be communicated with frankly and supportively. Once the dialogue gets past the anxiety stage, people are eager to look forward to the future and the new opportunities that may unfold.
Once the transition is handled, many fail to achieve the potential benefits because they fail to properly manage and monitor their vendors. Craft an agreement that explicitly documents service requirements and specifies the processes and deliverables up front. It is critical to watch increasing costs over time, as any cost savings that you initially achieved can be quickly eroded.
Also, make sure your contract includes a clear exit strategy, with well-thought-through provisions on how information will be accessed and data gets returned.
Outsourcing arrangements are multifaceted processes that require attention to business goals, human resource issues, technology and overall project management. Whether you decide to venture across the globe or keep things across the street, consider all of these issues and regularly revisit your goals to ensure the arrangement is meeting your ever-changing needs.
Karen Asner is a commercial litigator and an administrative partner at White & Case in New York, where she oversees all administrative aspects of the firm's 36 offices and helps shape firm culture, policies and strategic business objectives.
Law.com's ongoing IN FOCUS article series highlights opinion and analysis from our site's contributors and writers across the ALM network of publications.
::::FOOTNOTES::::
FN1 Thomas L. Friedman, "The World Is Flat" (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006).
Although law firms have traditionally outsourced services like security, travel or mail, the allure of Thomas Friedman's "flat" world has some law firms looking hard at whether to outsource other functions.[FOOTNOTE 1] The options are no longer limited to an outside vendor running a service in-house. Instead, firms face an impressive array of options offered around the globe, from Chennai, India, to Wheeling, W.Va. Navigating these decisions requires thoughtful consideration of your business goals and careful planning.
LET YOUR BUSINESS GOALS GUIDE THE STRATEGY
Review of outsourcing options is most often triggered by the desire for cost reduction. Although the lure of potential cost savings and operational efficiency is a powerful siren, outsourcing can offer numerous other benefits that further important business goals:
· Outsourcing can enhance service to clients and lawyers through greater operational coverage and better product area expertise.
· Outsourcing can free up management to focus on other strategic areas for the firm.
· Third-party vendors are more focused on a particular product or service and are more likely to stay abreast of the technological changes and other industry innovations that will further improve service and lower costs.
When White & Case expanded its outsourcing arrangements to include its word processing, creative design and publishing functions, the critical factor aside from cost-efficiencies was the significant potential for improving client and lawyer service. By moving these functions to an outside global vendor, the firm eliminated duplication of staff and equipment, consolidated and cross-trained staff, improved cost efficiencies and set a better firmwide support platform to leverage its global capabilities and 24/7 service. Smaller offices are now able to access improved service on a 24/7 platform that notably upgrades their ability to serve both lawyers and clients.
Similarly, White & Case's objective behind outsourcing a truly professional concierge and conference management service, commensurate with its newly upgraded New York conference center, was to create an environment that supports the firm's client service ethic. Its clients now experience a seamless welcoming reception service, upgraded audiovisual support and streamlined conference booking.
HOW TO EVALUATE THE ARRAY OF OPTIONS
Although cost savings are often touted as the most obvious and achievable benefit of outsourcing, prepare an apples-to-apples comparison of the costs and benefits of keeping a function in-house, or insourcing (keeping it in-house but moving to a lower cost location), versus outsourcing.
Carefully research a vendor's history, capabilities and competitors and definitely follow up with their references. Speak to your peers at other law firms to see what works and doesn't and get additional referrals. Friends outside of the legal profession can share a wealth of information from their experience, since corporations have been outsourcing functions for longer.
Depending on the function, it may be essential to use vendors with law firm experience because they will be familiar with handling confidential information and complying with particular ethical rules.
MANAGE YOUR OUTSOURCING STRATEGY AND PROCESS
Once the vendor has been selected, a detailed roll-out plan must be created. Thoroughly evaluate the work product during the transition phase -- including setting up a "shadow" team that performs the same tasks for comparison. Consider having an on-site project manager from your vendor who will be available for daily communications and who will understand your business.
It must be acknowledged that outsourcing decisions always make staff anxious -- and understandably so. It's crucial, therefore, that staff who are affected by the decision, whether they are moving or staying, be communicated with frankly and supportively. Once the dialogue gets past the anxiety stage, people are eager to look forward to the future and the new opportunities that may unfold.
Once the transition is handled, many fail to achieve the potential benefits because they fail to properly manage and monitor their vendors. Craft an agreement that explicitly documents service requirements and specifies the processes and deliverables up front. It is critical to watch increasing costs over time, as any cost savings that you initially achieved can be quickly eroded.
Also, make sure your contract includes a clear exit strategy, with well-thought-through provisions on how information will be accessed and data gets returned.
Outsourcing arrangements are multifaceted processes that require attention to business goals, human resource issues, technology and overall project management. Whether you decide to venture across the globe or keep things across the street, consider all of these issues and regularly revisit your goals to ensure the arrangement is meeting your ever-changing needs.
Karen Asner is a commercial litigator and an administrative partner at White & Case in New York, where she oversees all administrative aspects of the firm's 36 offices and helps shape firm culture, policies and strategic business objectives.
Law.com's ongoing IN FOCUS article series highlights opinion and analysis from our site's contributors and writers across the ALM network of publications.
::::FOOTNOTES::::
FN1 Thomas L. Friedman, "The World Is Flat" (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006).
Outsourcing Legal secretaries
Robert J. Ambrogi
As early as 1991, Ron Friedmann thought technology should lead law firms to rethink secretarial roles, he writes at his Strategic Legal Technology blog. In 2003, he wrote an article for Legal Times, The Future of Legal Secretaries, in which he suggested that firms test the concept of secretarial teams in order to save money and improve client service. Now, in a new whitepaper, he presents his case for why law firms should consider outsourcing secretarial and document production tasks.
It should be noted that Friedmann wrote the whitepaper on the dime of an outsourcing company. But his arguments are compelling -- with cost a big one. Consider that secretaries and document processing are typically a firm's third biggest expense after associate salaries and rent. Friedmann estimates that the direct cost of a secretary in a major urban area, factoring in salary, benefits and taxes, is $85,000. That does not include overhead. But, he says, firms use only 80 percent of that secretary's time on the job. Throw in HR issues, variations in workloads and the sometimes poor fit between skills and tasks, and outsourcing begins to look compelling.
Friedmann's overarching point is that law firms should at least consider outsourcing as an option. "Outsourcing may be wrong," he says, "but decide that consciously, not by interia."
As early as 1991, Ron Friedmann thought technology should lead law firms to rethink secretarial roles, he writes at his Strategic Legal Technology blog. In 2003, he wrote an article for Legal Times, The Future of Legal Secretaries, in which he suggested that firms test the concept of secretarial teams in order to save money and improve client service. Now, in a new whitepaper, he presents his case for why law firms should consider outsourcing secretarial and document production tasks.
It should be noted that Friedmann wrote the whitepaper on the dime of an outsourcing company. But his arguments are compelling -- with cost a big one. Consider that secretaries and document processing are typically a firm's third biggest expense after associate salaries and rent. Friedmann estimates that the direct cost of a secretary in a major urban area, factoring in salary, benefits and taxes, is $85,000. That does not include overhead. But, he says, firms use only 80 percent of that secretary's time on the job. Throw in HR issues, variations in workloads and the sometimes poor fit between skills and tasks, and outsourcing begins to look compelling.
Friedmann's overarching point is that law firms should at least consider outsourcing as an option. "Outsourcing may be wrong," he says, "but decide that consciously, not by interia."
Legal KPO in India
The aim of this article is to analyse the growing phenomenon of legal process outsourcing in India (LPO in India), legal knowledge process outsourcing in India (Legal KPO in India), legal business process outsourcing in India (Legal BPO in India), etc. These processes are easy to define but difficult to maintain and manage. As these phenomenon are in their infancy stage lot of law firms and companies are going to claim themselves as the expert service providers in these areas. However, very few of them would be able to meet the qualitative standards of International demand in the long run as there is a gradual shift from BPO to KPO where domain expertise plays the key role.
The advent of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has transformed the World into a single and global platform. The use of Internet has facilitated many business transactions that were unconceivable a few decades ago. Although all the countries have been benefited from this phenomenon yet its benefits are not equally available as it depends upon many factors like skilled workforce, the policy of the nation, availability of ICT for doing business etc. Although the legal fraternity of the World has not taken the use of ICT seriously yet certain legal business aspects have found favour with them. This is more so regarding Developing Countries like India. With an English speaking skilled legal force, India is undoubtedly the best destination for the following:
(a) Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO),
(b) Legal Business Process Outsourcing (Legal BPO),
(c) Legal Knowledge Process Outsourcing (Legal KPO), etc.
The gradual shift from BPO to KPO is posing a big challenge to Indian outsourcing industry as we are running short of “experts” who can manage domain specific problems. Although the requirements of BPO can be met with success with simple graduates and less skilled employees, yet KPO requires a totally different infrastructure and manpower. Unfortunately, our educational system is not upto the mark to meet the growing and challenging demands of KPO industry. We have to change the educational system and structure so that domain specific experts can be produced at the University level itself.
India is running short of skilled manpower in the fields of Law, Technology, Engineering, etc. It is not the quantity but the quality that would decide the fate of Indian BPO and KPO industry. As far as the legal field is concerned, we must pay more attention to higher studies and post graduation courses like LL.M. A simple LL.B qualification would not be suffice for KPO segment. Further, we must also introduce suitable courses like Cyber law, Intellectual Property Rights, International Trade, etc at the University level so that we may have sufficient number of legal experts. Further, there is a dire need of a “techno-legal perspective” as the future depends more upon techno-legal initiatives rather than pure legal business. Let us hope for the best in this regard.
Posted by Legalease solutions LLC
The advent of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has transformed the World into a single and global platform. The use of Internet has facilitated many business transactions that were unconceivable a few decades ago. Although all the countries have been benefited from this phenomenon yet its benefits are not equally available as it depends upon many factors like skilled workforce, the policy of the nation, availability of ICT for doing business etc. Although the legal fraternity of the World has not taken the use of ICT seriously yet certain legal business aspects have found favour with them. This is more so regarding Developing Countries like India. With an English speaking skilled legal force, India is undoubtedly the best destination for the following:
(a) Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO),
(b) Legal Business Process Outsourcing (Legal BPO),
(c) Legal Knowledge Process Outsourcing (Legal KPO), etc.
The gradual shift from BPO to KPO is posing a big challenge to Indian outsourcing industry as we are running short of “experts” who can manage domain specific problems. Although the requirements of BPO can be met with success with simple graduates and less skilled employees, yet KPO requires a totally different infrastructure and manpower. Unfortunately, our educational system is not upto the mark to meet the growing and challenging demands of KPO industry. We have to change the educational system and structure so that domain specific experts can be produced at the University level itself.
India is running short of skilled manpower in the fields of Law, Technology, Engineering, etc. It is not the quantity but the quality that would decide the fate of Indian BPO and KPO industry. As far as the legal field is concerned, we must pay more attention to higher studies and post graduation courses like LL.M. A simple LL.B qualification would not be suffice for KPO segment. Further, we must also introduce suitable courses like Cyber law, Intellectual Property Rights, International Trade, etc at the University level so that we may have sufficient number of legal experts. Further, there is a dire need of a “techno-legal perspective” as the future depends more upon techno-legal initiatives rather than pure legal business. Let us hope for the best in this regard.
Posted by Legalease solutions LLC
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
WNS bets on legal outsourcing
By - Priti Bajaj
NEW DELHI: WNS, a NYSE-listed business process outsourcing (BPO) major, is seeing a huge momentum in legal services.
Riding high on the legal process outsourcing wave, WNS has started legal services in Sri Lanka about eight months back and now has over 30 lawyers there. It has also scaled up the existing Pune operations, with more than 80 lawyers to handle the legal services, says Smita Gaikwad, company spokesperson for WNS.
Global spending on legal services is estimated to be at least over $250 billion, with the US accounting for more than two-thirds of the market. Conservative estimates of the current market potential for legal services outsourcing from the US alone are pegged at $ 3-4 billion. This comprises paralegal and research support, contract drafting and revising and contract management, library services, patent and trademark prosecution and litigation support.
Even though legal services segment is relatively newer, it is believed to have significant market potential. Market trends indicate that several international law firms, legal publishing companies and legal research firms are now sourcing legal services from India. Says Sunil Chandiramani, national director, risk and business solutions, Ernst and Young, "Since legal process offshoring is high up in the value chain, it will see exponential growth over the next five years because the value margin is significantly higher there, as compared to voice or transaction services."
Increasing maturity of the BPO industry has prompted businesses to review their service delivery models and to seek ways to leverage resources from lower cost offshore locations. "India, definitely stands to gain from this," says Gaikwad.
With an educated and skilled workforce, the low-rung BPOs have graduated to special BPOs or KPOs, and as specialists from various fields like insurance, law and travel join these KPOs, they have an edge over other low-cost destinations like Phillippines, Vietnam, etc, adds Gaikwad.
One thing that is evident is that BPO has matured into a huge business. A report by McKinsey and Nasscom says India's BPO export revenues will surge 37% by 2010, to touch $25 billion, from the current $7.5 billion.
According to a study undertaken by Hildebrandt International and OfficeTiger in 2004, the top 200 firms in the US spend over $9 billion (45% of their total annual spend of $20 billion) on these services. It is understood that significant portions of these services may be delivered from offshore locations achieving savings of 30-70%.
NEW DELHI: WNS, a NYSE-listed business process outsourcing (BPO) major, is seeing a huge momentum in legal services.
Riding high on the legal process outsourcing wave, WNS has started legal services in Sri Lanka about eight months back and now has over 30 lawyers there. It has also scaled up the existing Pune operations, with more than 80 lawyers to handle the legal services, says Smita Gaikwad, company spokesperson for WNS.
Global spending on legal services is estimated to be at least over $250 billion, with the US accounting for more than two-thirds of the market. Conservative estimates of the current market potential for legal services outsourcing from the US alone are pegged at $ 3-4 billion. This comprises paralegal and research support, contract drafting and revising and contract management, library services, patent and trademark prosecution and litigation support.
Even though legal services segment is relatively newer, it is believed to have significant market potential. Market trends indicate that several international law firms, legal publishing companies and legal research firms are now sourcing legal services from India. Says Sunil Chandiramani, national director, risk and business solutions, Ernst and Young, "Since legal process offshoring is high up in the value chain, it will see exponential growth over the next five years because the value margin is significantly higher there, as compared to voice or transaction services."
Increasing maturity of the BPO industry has prompted businesses to review their service delivery models and to seek ways to leverage resources from lower cost offshore locations. "India, definitely stands to gain from this," says Gaikwad.
With an educated and skilled workforce, the low-rung BPOs have graduated to special BPOs or KPOs, and as specialists from various fields like insurance, law and travel join these KPOs, they have an edge over other low-cost destinations like Phillippines, Vietnam, etc, adds Gaikwad.
One thing that is evident is that BPO has matured into a huge business. A report by McKinsey and Nasscom says India's BPO export revenues will surge 37% by 2010, to touch $25 billion, from the current $7.5 billion.
According to a study undertaken by Hildebrandt International and OfficeTiger in 2004, the top 200 firms in the US spend over $9 billion (45% of their total annual spend of $20 billion) on these services. It is understood that significant portions of these services may be delivered from offshore locations achieving savings of 30-70%.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Ten Ways Blogs Boost a Law Firm's Image
Ten Ways Blogs Boost a Law Firm's Image
Edward Poll
Law Technology News
11-02-2006
When done right, blogs are an informative, vibrant calling card that represents you to the world. When done wrong, blogs are a chore and unwelcome expense, and produce little return on your effort. The difference between the two depends on having a realistic understanding of what you face before you start a blog.
Here are 10 tips to help make the experience worthwhile:
1. Hit the target.
The first step is to define, and then target, your ideal audience. Effective blogs speak to specific niche markets. For example, if your target clients are low-income, blue collar consumers, question whether they are likely to be Web-savvy and facile with search tools. (The answer may still be "yes.") If not, a blog might not be a wise investment of your time. As Harvey Mackay said, "If you want to catch bass, you've got to fish where they are."
2. Demonstrate your expertise.
Use your blog to "show and tell" your knowledge, authority and experience. Be specific in your posts, and follow up -- respond to inquiries (and incorporate your posted material into articles, speeches and client updates). This will help your audience learn, over time, how you can assist them, and why they need you and your services and products.
3. Write clearly and concisely.
You aren't writing a legal brief -- rather, think of it as a one-on-one conversation with a client or prospect when you can't meet face-to-face. The best blogs are informal, conversational and demonstrate your expertise and experience. Save the Latin for the judge.
4. Make the commitment.
Blogs get stale fast. They are most effective when they have a steady flow of posts. That's easier said than done -- it takes real dedication, and time. Develop a routine for blogging. Think of working on blog content as the equivalent to working in the garden -- not so much a chore as relaxing time away from the daily grind.
5. Image counts.
You don't go to court in a T-shirt, likewise, pay attention to the look and feel of your blog. All of our activities shape impressions: the way we speak to people, the way we dress, even the way we eat. Some actions may invite interaction, others subtlely repel. Consider carefully the design of your blog, its presentation, color palette, (and of course, first and foremost, its content) to be sure that it reflects you at your best -- your expertise, personality and values.
6. Everything has a cost.
It takes time to maintain a blog. Creating posts and answering e-mail comments can quickly add up. If you devote two hours per week, times 50 work weeks per year, and your billing rate is $200 per hour -- that's $20,000 a year of billable time.
Certainly worth it, if the investment produces a strong return, but time is money, so watch out for the temptation to get addicted beyond the value of your ROI!
7. Do your homework.
One way to keep time and costs down is to learn and use Web tools that help you produce and distribute your blog. For example, you can write several posts at one sitting, but schedule each to appear on a specific day and time using TypePad's "Publish On" feature. Incorporating RSS (really simple syndication) and other tools can help you reach your audience by allowing your readers to "subscribe" to your blog and receive e-mail alerts.
8. Delegate.
Worried that you'll spend too much time blogging? Consider hiring someone to manage the technical aspects of your blog, such as uploading posts and graphics, tracking replies to posts, working on search engine optimization. The expense may be far less than the time spent updating and managing -- no matter how easy with TypePad or other tools -- that take you away from other marketing activities or even from your practice.
9. Remember your professional responsibility.
Delegating the maintenance of a blog doesn't mean abdicating the responsibility. The rules governing professional conduct and advertising vary greatly from state to state. Web sties that openly provide advice and/or solicit clients may be subject to disciplinary regulation, and many states are extending jurisdiction to lawyers who have no presence in their state other than on the Internet.
10. Keep your perspective.
Don't confuse blogs with the second coming of the printing press. Ultimately, they are just another communication vehicle. Most technology innovations over the past decade are just another turn of the wheel in the law's evolution from private club to business.
Attorney Edward Poll is the principal of Venice-Calif.-based LawBiz Management Co. and Edward Poll & Associates Inc. He is the author of the LawBiz Blog and can be reached at edpoll@lawbiz.com..
Edward Poll
Law Technology News
11-02-2006
When done right, blogs are an informative, vibrant calling card that represents you to the world. When done wrong, blogs are a chore and unwelcome expense, and produce little return on your effort. The difference between the two depends on having a realistic understanding of what you face before you start a blog.
Here are 10 tips to help make the experience worthwhile:
1. Hit the target.
The first step is to define, and then target, your ideal audience. Effective blogs speak to specific niche markets. For example, if your target clients are low-income, blue collar consumers, question whether they are likely to be Web-savvy and facile with search tools. (The answer may still be "yes.") If not, a blog might not be a wise investment of your time. As Harvey Mackay said, "If you want to catch bass, you've got to fish where they are."
2. Demonstrate your expertise.
Use your blog to "show and tell" your knowledge, authority and experience. Be specific in your posts, and follow up -- respond to inquiries (and incorporate your posted material into articles, speeches and client updates). This will help your audience learn, over time, how you can assist them, and why they need you and your services and products.
3. Write clearly and concisely.
You aren't writing a legal brief -- rather, think of it as a one-on-one conversation with a client or prospect when you can't meet face-to-face. The best blogs are informal, conversational and demonstrate your expertise and experience. Save the Latin for the judge.
4. Make the commitment.
Blogs get stale fast. They are most effective when they have a steady flow of posts. That's easier said than done -- it takes real dedication, and time. Develop a routine for blogging. Think of working on blog content as the equivalent to working in the garden -- not so much a chore as relaxing time away from the daily grind.
5. Image counts.
You don't go to court in a T-shirt, likewise, pay attention to the look and feel of your blog. All of our activities shape impressions: the way we speak to people, the way we dress, even the way we eat. Some actions may invite interaction, others subtlely repel. Consider carefully the design of your blog, its presentation, color palette, (and of course, first and foremost, its content) to be sure that it reflects you at your best -- your expertise, personality and values.
6. Everything has a cost.
It takes time to maintain a blog. Creating posts and answering e-mail comments can quickly add up. If you devote two hours per week, times 50 work weeks per year, and your billing rate is $200 per hour -- that's $20,000 a year of billable time.
Certainly worth it, if the investment produces a strong return, but time is money, so watch out for the temptation to get addicted beyond the value of your ROI!
7. Do your homework.
One way to keep time and costs down is to learn and use Web tools that help you produce and distribute your blog. For example, you can write several posts at one sitting, but schedule each to appear on a specific day and time using TypePad's "Publish On" feature. Incorporating RSS (really simple syndication) and other tools can help you reach your audience by allowing your readers to "subscribe" to your blog and receive e-mail alerts.
8. Delegate.
Worried that you'll spend too much time blogging? Consider hiring someone to manage the technical aspects of your blog, such as uploading posts and graphics, tracking replies to posts, working on search engine optimization. The expense may be far less than the time spent updating and managing -- no matter how easy with TypePad or other tools -- that take you away from other marketing activities or even from your practice.
9. Remember your professional responsibility.
Delegating the maintenance of a blog doesn't mean abdicating the responsibility. The rules governing professional conduct and advertising vary greatly from state to state. Web sties that openly provide advice and/or solicit clients may be subject to disciplinary regulation, and many states are extending jurisdiction to lawyers who have no presence in their state other than on the Internet.
10. Keep your perspective.
Don't confuse blogs with the second coming of the printing press. Ultimately, they are just another communication vehicle. Most technology innovations over the past decade are just another turn of the wheel in the law's evolution from private club to business.
Attorney Edward Poll is the principal of Venice-Calif.-based LawBiz Management Co. and Edward Poll & Associates Inc. He is the author of the LawBiz Blog and can be reached at edpoll@lawbiz.com..
Thursday, November 02, 2006
New York Times: Law Firms Are Starting to Adopt Outsourcing
Law Firms Are Starting to Adopt Outsourcing
By JULIE CRESWELL
For years, outsourcing has been a dirty word inside the world of white-shoe law firms.
While certain law firms hired companies to handle travel or records storage, most drew the line at sending client billing or confidential documents out of their offices, let alone out of the country.
A number of large law firms, though, are starting to tiptoe onto far-flung shores.
The latest is Clifford Chance, one of the largest law firms in the world with 29 offices in 20 countries, which will announce plans today to consolidate and move big chunks of its administrative functions like accounting and technological support to an operation in Delhi, India, by next spring.
The shift to India could eventually result in up to $18 million a year in savings, the law firm estimates.
While corporate America has embraced sending clerical, customer and technical support functions overseas, law firms have been much more reluctant to do so. Their chief concern is that confidential client documents or information could be leaked, stolen or simply lost.
But in the race to offer large global corporate clients like I.B.M. or the Gap around-the-clock attention and legal advice, many law firms are opening up satellite offices all over the world.
While good for the clients, the costs of operating dozens of offices across the globe leave law firms aghast. Therefore, some are looking at ways to centralize many back-office functions but also to move them out of high-cost cities like New York and London and into either lower-cost regions of the United States or abroad to places like India.
“The fully loaded cost for a clerical person in a major metropolitan area can run $85,000 to $100,000 a year,” said Mark Santiago, chief executive of International CoSourcing Group, a management consultant for law firms. “If you multiply that by 70 or 100 people, you have a major cost center, and law firms are being put under great pressure from corporations to reduce their bills.”
Despite the attractive economics, a mere trickle of law firms have actually moved operations out of their headquarters or to overseas locations. Yet some are betting that law will be the next industry to shift parts of its operations to lower-cost regions of the world.
“We think legal is going to be our biggest market going forward,” said Liam Brown, the president and chief executive of Integreon Managed Solutions, an outsourcing firm that is building the center that Clifford Chance will use in India.
About six years ago, a rival to Clifford Chance, Baker & McKenzie, opened an office in the Philippines to do word processing for offices in the Asia Pacific region. Today, that office, with Baker & McKenzie employees as its staff, creates spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations; monitors the firms’ entire computer network; and handles about 40 percent of the financial work for the Pacific region, including client billing.
“We have a lot of small offices, and they can’t have 24-hour word-processing support or somebody who is going to make them a high-quality Power Point presentation,” said Craig Courter, chief operating officer with Baker & McKenzie.
Clifford Chance is following a similar model with its move to India. It will be the anchor client for a 45,000-square-foot operation being built by Integreon. Integreon will manage the center, but Clifford Chance will oversee the employees.
Clifford hired Integreon about two years ago to handle some of its word-processing functions. This step will involve moving certain accounting activities, like accounts payable, and technical support functions to the Indian site, said Amanda Burton, the director of global business services for Clifford Chance. Ms. Burton said client billing would not be done in the overseas office, at least for now.
“Nothing is in the ‘do not touch’ basket,” Ms. Burton said. “We just have to make sure that what we do initially works.”
Many other law firms are taking a similar baby-step approach to sending work overseas.
About a year ago when White & Case, another law firm, considered hiring an outside company in India to handle word-processing activities, it wanted to make sure documents going over its computer network could not be intercepted or that individuals working in India could not print out the documents or take them home.
And while Richard McKenna, the chief administrative officer for White & Case, said he had been happy with the work the outside firm had done and that some marketing functions had now also been moved overseas, he had concerns about sending other documents too far from home.
“We do continue to look at outsourcing as a way to improve efficiencies and manage infrastructure costs, but it’s not a quick decision that we would make,” he said.
By JULIE CRESWELL
For years, outsourcing has been a dirty word inside the world of white-shoe law firms.
While certain law firms hired companies to handle travel or records storage, most drew the line at sending client billing or confidential documents out of their offices, let alone out of the country.
A number of large law firms, though, are starting to tiptoe onto far-flung shores.
The latest is Clifford Chance, one of the largest law firms in the world with 29 offices in 20 countries, which will announce plans today to consolidate and move big chunks of its administrative functions like accounting and technological support to an operation in Delhi, India, by next spring.
The shift to India could eventually result in up to $18 million a year in savings, the law firm estimates.
While corporate America has embraced sending clerical, customer and technical support functions overseas, law firms have been much more reluctant to do so. Their chief concern is that confidential client documents or information could be leaked, stolen or simply lost.
But in the race to offer large global corporate clients like I.B.M. or the Gap around-the-clock attention and legal advice, many law firms are opening up satellite offices all over the world.
While good for the clients, the costs of operating dozens of offices across the globe leave law firms aghast. Therefore, some are looking at ways to centralize many back-office functions but also to move them out of high-cost cities like New York and London and into either lower-cost regions of the United States or abroad to places like India.
“The fully loaded cost for a clerical person in a major metropolitan area can run $85,000 to $100,000 a year,” said Mark Santiago, chief executive of International CoSourcing Group, a management consultant for law firms. “If you multiply that by 70 or 100 people, you have a major cost center, and law firms are being put under great pressure from corporations to reduce their bills.”
Despite the attractive economics, a mere trickle of law firms have actually moved operations out of their headquarters or to overseas locations. Yet some are betting that law will be the next industry to shift parts of its operations to lower-cost regions of the world.
“We think legal is going to be our biggest market going forward,” said Liam Brown, the president and chief executive of Integreon Managed Solutions, an outsourcing firm that is building the center that Clifford Chance will use in India.
About six years ago, a rival to Clifford Chance, Baker & McKenzie, opened an office in the Philippines to do word processing for offices in the Asia Pacific region. Today, that office, with Baker & McKenzie employees as its staff, creates spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations; monitors the firms’ entire computer network; and handles about 40 percent of the financial work for the Pacific region, including client billing.
“We have a lot of small offices, and they can’t have 24-hour word-processing support or somebody who is going to make them a high-quality Power Point presentation,” said Craig Courter, chief operating officer with Baker & McKenzie.
Clifford Chance is following a similar model with its move to India. It will be the anchor client for a 45,000-square-foot operation being built by Integreon. Integreon will manage the center, but Clifford Chance will oversee the employees.
Clifford hired Integreon about two years ago to handle some of its word-processing functions. This step will involve moving certain accounting activities, like accounts payable, and technical support functions to the Indian site, said Amanda Burton, the director of global business services for Clifford Chance. Ms. Burton said client billing would not be done in the overseas office, at least for now.
“Nothing is in the ‘do not touch’ basket,” Ms. Burton said. “We just have to make sure that what we do initially works.”
Many other law firms are taking a similar baby-step approach to sending work overseas.
About a year ago when White & Case, another law firm, considered hiring an outside company in India to handle word-processing activities, it wanted to make sure documents going over its computer network could not be intercepted or that individuals working in India could not print out the documents or take them home.
And while Richard McKenna, the chief administrative officer for White & Case, said he had been happy with the work the outside firm had done and that some marketing functions had now also been moved overseas, he had concerns about sending other documents too far from home.
“We do continue to look at outsourcing as a way to improve efficiencies and manage infrastructure costs, but it’s not a quick decision that we would make,” he said.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Outsourcing Attorneys
Outsourcing attorneys
By Molly F. Dilbeck, J.D.
Managing your practice
You've been there. Your computer inexplicably stopped working, and now you
have to call the 1-800 number to figure out just what is the matter. When
your call is answered, you find yourself speaking to someone on the opposite
side of the globe. Why? Because the computer company outsourced its
tech-support staff overseas.
Now, imagine calling a 1-800 number and being connected to someone in New
Delhi or Tel Aviv in an effort to discuss the finer points of your motion
for summary disposition.
Sound farfetched? Maybe not.
In our ever-shrinking world, more and more companies are shipping work out
and overseas in an effort to cut costs. For example, just recently, DuPont
announced in Business Weekly its decision to open an office in Manila ,
staffed by 30 Filipino attorneys who will be analyzing documents for pending
litigation and saving an anticipated $6 million in the process.
The cost is next to nothing, since most legal outsourcing firms charge
between $20 - $75 an hour, depending on the type of work and urgency of the
project.
Further, these firms promote their ability to save attorneys the most
valuable asset of all - their time. By farming out legal research, these
outsourcing businesses advertise their ability to enable attorneys to
practice more efficiently and take on more work with less stress and output.
Off-shore assistance
Money saved and ease of use, however, don't assuage all of the concerns that
can arise from the mere mention of outsourcing.
The idea of outsourcing causes some to conjure worst-case scenarios, such as
the loss of U.S. jobs, or the difficulty in communicating with a person in
another country regarding a problem.
Many different worries crop up when the work being outsourced is legal in
nature - including confidentiality, ethics, and the relevance of lawyers and
support staff in a constantly-changing legal community.
Not surprisingly, legal outsourcing companies don't see the cause for alarm.
In fact, these businesses contend they only want to help attorneys be more
efficient, expand their practices and save money, not displace them.
Detroit-based LegalEase Solutions, LLC, is one such company. Founded in
2004, LegalEase was formed with the aim of providing firms with a
"competitive edge by adding to their capacity without an increase in their
infrastructure costs," says the business' president and general counsel
Tariq Hafeez.
Though LegalEase is headquartered in Michigan , it also has an office in
India , where much of its work is done. Moreover, much of LegalEase's staff
is comprised of Indian attorneys.
In addition to its U.S. attorneys, LegalEase's "offshore attorneys are
qualified from the top law schools in India ," the company said in a 2005
interview with the Detroit Legal News.
Of course, the idea of a non-American attorney working on a legal document
might alarm some attorneys and clients, but LegalEase stresses it conducts
"a very stringent and robust initial training program on U.S. constitutional
law and the use of online legal databases like LexisNexis."
As "foreign" as it may seem to American lawyers, using foreign and
foreign-based attorneys to do American legal research is not unique to
LegalEase. Many companies are doing it.
Dhraj Aggarwal of India's Economical Services says his company employs the
services of Indian attorneys who are "graduates of the top law schools of
India," but "can work on the law of most countries" because the company is
an "Internet-based research organization."
Touting India as one of the "most preferred outsourcing destinations,"
Aggarwal stated his company was capable of serving as a "back-office to
U.S.-based attorneys" by providing them with "high-quality, low-cost work."
Hafeez concurs, saying his staff functions as "virtual associates" who are
"available 24/7." This availability allows attorneys to then "take on more
work or spend time doing what's most important to their practice," without
having to increase their overhead costs, he explained.
Further, Hafeez points out each project his attorneys work on is checked and
re-checked before an American attorney employed by LegalEase gives the
go-ahead for the work to be given to an attorney-client.
Nevertheless, Hafeez cautioned that "the onus lies on the attorneys to
review all the work we provide them before they choose to use it."
'American lawyers' at-large
For those who are interested in off-shoring legal work for cost and
efficiency reasons, but are not entirely comfortable with the idea of
sending sensitive legal material into the hands of a non-U.S. attorney, the
legal outsourcing market provides at least one option.
According to CEO and managing counsel Steven Ettinger, Israel-based SuperLaw
not only helps small firms "work larger" by providing them with the
"big-firm advantage," but boasts a staff of nearly 50 American attorneys who
live and work in Israel .
He explained that all SuperLaw "counselors are American law school
graduates, admitted in at least one state, and average more than 10 years of
experience."
Ethical implications
Although these firms market their ability to function as overseas
associates, all underscore they are not law firms and are not seeking to
compete with American attorneys.
LegalEase "provide[s] only support services to attorneys" and is "not a law
firm," Hafeez says of his company.
Ettinger echoes this sentiment, observing that SuperLaw works "exclusively
under the direction of our customer-lawyers" and does "not practice law
directly" for any person.
"We are no different in this regard than the many legal assistants, law
students, and associates in the employ of thousands of firms," he explained.
Further, SuperLaw takes precautions to protect the clients of its clients.
"SuperLaw will not provide services to an attorney in an area that is
outside his or her experience," Ettinger said. "For example, we will not
handle a bankruptcy appeal for a criminal practice or handle a patent claim
application for a family lawyer."
This measure is taken to protect all involved, especially because the
attorneys who employ SuperLaw "are ultimately responsible for the work
product," he explained.
Outlook for legal outsourcing
What is the verdict on these businesses? Birmingham attorney Shereef H.
Akeel believes there are real benefits to outsourcing certain types of legal
work.
In the past, Akeel has outsourced legal research to LegalEase, and found the
experience to be "positive" and the product to be "exceptional."
However, Akeel cautioned attorneys to "be careful about what you outsource."
Because "you don't want to breach any privileges, since you do not have
control of this third party," Akeel advised attorneys to research who would
be doing the work.
Hafeez says this isn't a problem and attorneys need not worry about the
security of information passed to his company in order to complete a
project.
He noted that all case information is protected on LegalEase's servers using
the "highest levels of security that technology has to offer."
Further, Akeel believes outsourcing should be kept to a minimum where a case
is fact-driven.
"The more fact-intensive the issue, the less outsourcing should be used
since the attorney working on the [issue]" needs to be well-versed on the
facts, he said, adding he would recommend outsourcing where "the research is
based on pure legal issues."
In the meantime, companies like LegalEase and SuperLaw may just be the wave
of the legal future.
With the realization that global outsourcing of important business matters
is becoming more and more accepted, Ettinger says "the need for a better
practice model is obvious," and he expects companies like his to provide
attorneys with the "resources of a big firm ... no matter how small their
practice or how relatively inexperienced" they may be.
If you would like to comment on this story, please contact Molly F. Dilbeck
at (248) 596-2700 ext. 39 or
http://us.f816.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=molly.dilbeck@mi.lawyersweekly.c
om
C 2006 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.
By Molly F. Dilbeck, J.D.
Managing your practice
You've been there. Your computer inexplicably stopped working, and now you
have to call the 1-800 number to figure out just what is the matter. When
your call is answered, you find yourself speaking to someone on the opposite
side of the globe. Why? Because the computer company outsourced its
tech-support staff overseas.
Now, imagine calling a 1-800 number and being connected to someone in New
Delhi or Tel Aviv in an effort to discuss the finer points of your motion
for summary disposition.
Sound farfetched? Maybe not.
In our ever-shrinking world, more and more companies are shipping work out
and overseas in an effort to cut costs. For example, just recently, DuPont
announced in Business Weekly its decision to open an office in Manila ,
staffed by 30 Filipino attorneys who will be analyzing documents for pending
litigation and saving an anticipated $6 million in the process.
The cost is next to nothing, since most legal outsourcing firms charge
between $20 - $75 an hour, depending on the type of work and urgency of the
project.
Further, these firms promote their ability to save attorneys the most
valuable asset of all - their time. By farming out legal research, these
outsourcing businesses advertise their ability to enable attorneys to
practice more efficiently and take on more work with less stress and output.
Off-shore assistance
Money saved and ease of use, however, don't assuage all of the concerns that
can arise from the mere mention of outsourcing.
The idea of outsourcing causes some to conjure worst-case scenarios, such as
the loss of U.S. jobs, or the difficulty in communicating with a person in
another country regarding a problem.
Many different worries crop up when the work being outsourced is legal in
nature - including confidentiality, ethics, and the relevance of lawyers and
support staff in a constantly-changing legal community.
Not surprisingly, legal outsourcing companies don't see the cause for alarm.
In fact, these businesses contend they only want to help attorneys be more
efficient, expand their practices and save money, not displace them.
Detroit-based LegalEase Solutions, LLC, is one such company. Founded in
2004, LegalEase was formed with the aim of providing firms with a
"competitive edge by adding to their capacity without an increase in their
infrastructure costs," says the business' president and general counsel
Tariq Hafeez.
Though LegalEase is headquartered in Michigan , it also has an office in
India , where much of its work is done. Moreover, much of LegalEase's staff
is comprised of Indian attorneys.
In addition to its U.S. attorneys, LegalEase's "offshore attorneys are
qualified from the top law schools in India ," the company said in a 2005
interview with the Detroit Legal News.
Of course, the idea of a non-American attorney working on a legal document
might alarm some attorneys and clients, but LegalEase stresses it conducts
"a very stringent and robust initial training program on U.S. constitutional
law and the use of online legal databases like LexisNexis."
As "foreign" as it may seem to American lawyers, using foreign and
foreign-based attorneys to do American legal research is not unique to
LegalEase. Many companies are doing it.
Dhraj Aggarwal of India's Economical Services says his company employs the
services of Indian attorneys who are "graduates of the top law schools of
India," but "can work on the law of most countries" because the company is
an "Internet-based research organization."
Touting India as one of the "most preferred outsourcing destinations,"
Aggarwal stated his company was capable of serving as a "back-office to
U.S.-based attorneys" by providing them with "high-quality, low-cost work."
Hafeez concurs, saying his staff functions as "virtual associates" who are
"available 24/7." This availability allows attorneys to then "take on more
work or spend time doing what's most important to their practice," without
having to increase their overhead costs, he explained.
Further, Hafeez points out each project his attorneys work on is checked and
re-checked before an American attorney employed by LegalEase gives the
go-ahead for the work to be given to an attorney-client.
Nevertheless, Hafeez cautioned that "the onus lies on the attorneys to
review all the work we provide them before they choose to use it."
'American lawyers' at-large
For those who are interested in off-shoring legal work for cost and
efficiency reasons, but are not entirely comfortable with the idea of
sending sensitive legal material into the hands of a non-U.S. attorney, the
legal outsourcing market provides at least one option.
According to CEO and managing counsel Steven Ettinger, Israel-based SuperLaw
not only helps small firms "work larger" by providing them with the
"big-firm advantage," but boasts a staff of nearly 50 American attorneys who
live and work in Israel .
He explained that all SuperLaw "counselors are American law school
graduates, admitted in at least one state, and average more than 10 years of
experience."
Ethical implications
Although these firms market their ability to function as overseas
associates, all underscore they are not law firms and are not seeking to
compete with American attorneys.
LegalEase "provide[s] only support services to attorneys" and is "not a law
firm," Hafeez says of his company.
Ettinger echoes this sentiment, observing that SuperLaw works "exclusively
under the direction of our customer-lawyers" and does "not practice law
directly" for any person.
"We are no different in this regard than the many legal assistants, law
students, and associates in the employ of thousands of firms," he explained.
Further, SuperLaw takes precautions to protect the clients of its clients.
"SuperLaw will not provide services to an attorney in an area that is
outside his or her experience," Ettinger said. "For example, we will not
handle a bankruptcy appeal for a criminal practice or handle a patent claim
application for a family lawyer."
This measure is taken to protect all involved, especially because the
attorneys who employ SuperLaw "are ultimately responsible for the work
product," he explained.
Outlook for legal outsourcing
What is the verdict on these businesses? Birmingham attorney Shereef H.
Akeel believes there are real benefits to outsourcing certain types of legal
work.
In the past, Akeel has outsourced legal research to LegalEase, and found the
experience to be "positive" and the product to be "exceptional."
However, Akeel cautioned attorneys to "be careful about what you outsource."
Because "you don't want to breach any privileges, since you do not have
control of this third party," Akeel advised attorneys to research who would
be doing the work.
Hafeez says this isn't a problem and attorneys need not worry about the
security of information passed to his company in order to complete a
project.
He noted that all case information is protected on LegalEase's servers using
the "highest levels of security that technology has to offer."
Further, Akeel believes outsourcing should be kept to a minimum where a case
is fact-driven.
"The more fact-intensive the issue, the less outsourcing should be used
since the attorney working on the [issue]" needs to be well-versed on the
facts, he said, adding he would recommend outsourcing where "the research is
based on pure legal issues."
In the meantime, companies like LegalEase and SuperLaw may just be the wave
of the legal future.
With the realization that global outsourcing of important business matters
is becoming more and more accepted, Ettinger says "the need for a better
practice model is obvious," and he expects companies like his to provide
attorneys with the "resources of a big firm ... no matter how small their
practice or how relatively inexperienced" they may be.
If you would like to comment on this story, please contact Molly F. Dilbeck
at (248) 596-2700 ext. 39 or
http://us.f816.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=molly.dilbeck@mi.lawyersweekly.c
om
C 2006 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
LegalEase featured in Michigan Lawyers Weekly
Outsourcing attorneys
By Molly F. Dilbeck, J.D.
Managing your practice
You've been there. Your computer inexplicably stopped working, and now you have to call the 1-800 number to figure out just what is the matter. When your call is answered, you find yourself speaking to someone on the opposite side of the globe. Why? Because the computer company outsourced its tech-support staff overseas.
Now, imagine calling a 1-800 number and being connected to someone in New Delhi or Tel Aviv in an effort to discuss the finer points of your motion for summary disposition.
Sound farfetched? Maybe not.
In our ever-shrinking world, more and more companies are shipping work out and overseas in an effort to cut costs. For example, just recently, DuPont announced in Business Weekly its decision to open an office in Manila, staffed by 30 Filipino attorneys who will be analyzing documents for pending litigation and saving an anticipated $6 million in the process.
The cost is next to nothing, since most legal outsourcing firms charge between $20 - $75 an hour, depending on the type of work and urgency of the project.
Further, these firms promote their ability to save attorneys the most valuable asset of all — their time. By farming out legal research, these outsourcing businesses advertise their ability to enable attorneys to practice more efficiently and take on more work with less stress and output.
Off-shore assistance
Money saved and ease of use, however, don't assuage all of the concerns that can arise from the mere mention of outsourcing.
The idea of outsourcing causes some to conjure worst-case scenarios, such as the loss of U.S. jobs, or the difficulty in communicating with a person in another country regarding a problem.
Many different worries crop up when the work being outsourced is legal in nature — including confidentiality, ethics, and the relevance of lawyers and support staff in a constantly-changing legal community.
Not surprisingly, legal outsourcing companies don't see the cause for alarm.
In fact, these businesses contend they only want to help attorneys be more efficient, expand their practices and save money, not displace them.
Detroit-based LegalEase Solutions, LLC, is one such company. Founded in 2004, LegalEase was formed with the aim of providing firms with a "competitive edge by adding to their capacity without an increase in their infrastructure costs," says the business' president and general counsel Tariq Hafeez.
Though LegalEase is headquartered in Michigan, it also has an office in India, where much of its work is done. Moreover, much of LegalEase's staff is comprised of Indian attorneys.
In addition to its U.S. attorneys, LegalEase's "offshore attorneys are qualified from the top law schools in India," the company said in a 2005 interview with the Detroit Legal News.
Of course, the idea of a non-American attorney working on a legal document might alarm some attorneys and clients, but LegalEase stresses it conducts "a very stringent and robust initial training program on U.S. constitutional law and the use of online legal databases like LexisNexis."
As "foreign" as it may seem to American lawyers, using foreign and foreign-based attorneys to do American legal research is not unique to LegalEase. Many companies are doing it.
Dhraj Aggarwal of India's Economical Services says his company employs the services of Indian attorneys who are "graduates of the top law schools of India," but "can work on the law of most countries" because the company is an "Internet-based research organization."
Touting India as one of the "most preferred outsourcing destinations," Aggarwal stated his company was capable of serving as a "back-office to U.S.-based attorneys" by providing them with "high-quality, low-cost work."
Hafeez concurs, saying his staff functions as "virtual associates" who are "available 24/7." This availability allows attorneys to then "take on more work or spend time doing what's most important to their practice," without having to increase their overhead costs, he explained.
Further, Hafeez points out each project his attorneys work on is checked and re-checked before an American attorney employed by LegalEase gives the go-ahead for the work to be given to an attorney-client.
Nevertheless, Hafeez cautioned that "the onus lies on the attorneys to review all the work we provide them before they choose to use it."
'American lawyers' at-large
For those who are interested in off-shoring legal work for cost and efficiency reasons, but are not entirely comfortable with the idea of sending sensitive legal material into the hands of a non-U.S. attorney, the legal outsourcing market provides at least one option.
According to CEO and managing counsel Steven Ettinger, Israel-based SuperLaw not only helps small firms "work larger" by providing them with the "big-firm advantage," but boasts a staff of nearly 50 American attorneys who live and work in Israel.
He explained that all SuperLaw "counselors are American law school graduates, admitted in at least one state, and average more than 10 years of experience."
Ethical implications
Although these firms market their ability to function as overseas associates, all underscore they are not law firms and are not seeking to compete with American attorneys.
LegalEase "provide[s] only support services to attorneys" and is "not a law firm," Hafeez says of his company.
Ettinger echoes this sentiment, observing that SuperLaw works "exclusively under the direction of our customer-lawyers" and does "not practice law directly" for any person.
"We are no different in this regard than the many legal assistants, law students, and associates in the employ of thousands of firms," he explained.
Further, SuperLaw takes precautions to protect the clients of its clients.
"SuperLaw will not provide services to an attorney in an area that is outside his or her experience," Ettinger said. "For example, we will not handle a bankruptcy appeal for a criminal practice or handle a patent claim application for a family lawyer."
This measure is taken to protect all involved, especially because the attorneys who employ SuperLaw "are ultimately responsible for the work product," he explained.
Outlook for legal outsourcing
What is the verdict on these businesses? Birmingham attorney Shereef H. Akeel believes there are real benefits to outsourcing certain types of legal work.
In the past, Akeel has outsourced legal research to LegalEase, and found the experience to be "positive" and the product to be "exceptional."
However, Akeel cautioned attorneys to "be careful about what you outsource."
Because "you don't want to breach any privileges, since you do not have control of this third party," Akeel advised attorneys to research who would be doing the work.
Hafeez says this isn't a problem and attorneys need not worry about the security of information passed to his company in order to complete a project.
He noted that all case information is protected on LegalEase's servers using the "highest levels of security that technology has to offer."
Further, Akeel believes outsourcing should be kept to a minimum where a case is fact-driven.
"The more fact-intensive the issue, the less outsourcing should be used since the attorney working on the [issue]" needs to be well-versed on the facts, he said, adding he would recommend outsourcing where "the research is based on pure legal issues."
In the meantime, companies like LegalEase and SuperLaw may just be the wave of the legal future.
With the realization that global outsourcing of important business matters is becoming more and more accepted, Ettinger says "the need for a better practice model is obvious," and he expects companies like his to provide attorneys with the "resources of a big firm ... no matter how small their practice or how relatively inexperienced" they may be.
If you would like to comment on this story, please contact Molly F. Dilbeck at (248) 596-2700 ext. 39 or molly.dilbeck@mi.lawyersweekly.com.
© 2006 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.
By Molly F. Dilbeck, J.D.
Managing your practice
You've been there. Your computer inexplicably stopped working, and now you have to call the 1-800 number to figure out just what is the matter. When your call is answered, you find yourself speaking to someone on the opposite side of the globe. Why? Because the computer company outsourced its tech-support staff overseas.
Now, imagine calling a 1-800 number and being connected to someone in New Delhi or Tel Aviv in an effort to discuss the finer points of your motion for summary disposition.
Sound farfetched? Maybe not.
In our ever-shrinking world, more and more companies are shipping work out and overseas in an effort to cut costs. For example, just recently, DuPont announced in Business Weekly its decision to open an office in Manila, staffed by 30 Filipino attorneys who will be analyzing documents for pending litigation and saving an anticipated $6 million in the process.
The cost is next to nothing, since most legal outsourcing firms charge between $20 - $75 an hour, depending on the type of work and urgency of the project.
Further, these firms promote their ability to save attorneys the most valuable asset of all — their time. By farming out legal research, these outsourcing businesses advertise their ability to enable attorneys to practice more efficiently and take on more work with less stress and output.
Off-shore assistance
Money saved and ease of use, however, don't assuage all of the concerns that can arise from the mere mention of outsourcing.
The idea of outsourcing causes some to conjure worst-case scenarios, such as the loss of U.S. jobs, or the difficulty in communicating with a person in another country regarding a problem.
Many different worries crop up when the work being outsourced is legal in nature — including confidentiality, ethics, and the relevance of lawyers and support staff in a constantly-changing legal community.
Not surprisingly, legal outsourcing companies don't see the cause for alarm.
In fact, these businesses contend they only want to help attorneys be more efficient, expand their practices and save money, not displace them.
Detroit-based LegalEase Solutions, LLC, is one such company. Founded in 2004, LegalEase was formed with the aim of providing firms with a "competitive edge by adding to their capacity without an increase in their infrastructure costs," says the business' president and general counsel Tariq Hafeez.
Though LegalEase is headquartered in Michigan, it also has an office in India, where much of its work is done. Moreover, much of LegalEase's staff is comprised of Indian attorneys.
In addition to its U.S. attorneys, LegalEase's "offshore attorneys are qualified from the top law schools in India," the company said in a 2005 interview with the Detroit Legal News.
Of course, the idea of a non-American attorney working on a legal document might alarm some attorneys and clients, but LegalEase stresses it conducts "a very stringent and robust initial training program on U.S. constitutional law and the use of online legal databases like LexisNexis."
As "foreign" as it may seem to American lawyers, using foreign and foreign-based attorneys to do American legal research is not unique to LegalEase. Many companies are doing it.
Dhraj Aggarwal of India's Economical Services says his company employs the services of Indian attorneys who are "graduates of the top law schools of India," but "can work on the law of most countries" because the company is an "Internet-based research organization."
Touting India as one of the "most preferred outsourcing destinations," Aggarwal stated his company was capable of serving as a "back-office to U.S.-based attorneys" by providing them with "high-quality, low-cost work."
Hafeez concurs, saying his staff functions as "virtual associates" who are "available 24/7." This availability allows attorneys to then "take on more work or spend time doing what's most important to their practice," without having to increase their overhead costs, he explained.
Further, Hafeez points out each project his attorneys work on is checked and re-checked before an American attorney employed by LegalEase gives the go-ahead for the work to be given to an attorney-client.
Nevertheless, Hafeez cautioned that "the onus lies on the attorneys to review all the work we provide them before they choose to use it."
'American lawyers' at-large
For those who are interested in off-shoring legal work for cost and efficiency reasons, but are not entirely comfortable with the idea of sending sensitive legal material into the hands of a non-U.S. attorney, the legal outsourcing market provides at least one option.
According to CEO and managing counsel Steven Ettinger, Israel-based SuperLaw not only helps small firms "work larger" by providing them with the "big-firm advantage," but boasts a staff of nearly 50 American attorneys who live and work in Israel.
He explained that all SuperLaw "counselors are American law school graduates, admitted in at least one state, and average more than 10 years of experience."
Ethical implications
Although these firms market their ability to function as overseas associates, all underscore they are not law firms and are not seeking to compete with American attorneys.
LegalEase "provide[s] only support services to attorneys" and is "not a law firm," Hafeez says of his company.
Ettinger echoes this sentiment, observing that SuperLaw works "exclusively under the direction of our customer-lawyers" and does "not practice law directly" for any person.
"We are no different in this regard than the many legal assistants, law students, and associates in the employ of thousands of firms," he explained.
Further, SuperLaw takes precautions to protect the clients of its clients.
"SuperLaw will not provide services to an attorney in an area that is outside his or her experience," Ettinger said. "For example, we will not handle a bankruptcy appeal for a criminal practice or handle a patent claim application for a family lawyer."
This measure is taken to protect all involved, especially because the attorneys who employ SuperLaw "are ultimately responsible for the work product," he explained.
Outlook for legal outsourcing
What is the verdict on these businesses? Birmingham attorney Shereef H. Akeel believes there are real benefits to outsourcing certain types of legal work.
In the past, Akeel has outsourced legal research to LegalEase, and found the experience to be "positive" and the product to be "exceptional."
However, Akeel cautioned attorneys to "be careful about what you outsource."
Because "you don't want to breach any privileges, since you do not have control of this third party," Akeel advised attorneys to research who would be doing the work.
Hafeez says this isn't a problem and attorneys need not worry about the security of information passed to his company in order to complete a project.
He noted that all case information is protected on LegalEase's servers using the "highest levels of security that technology has to offer."
Further, Akeel believes outsourcing should be kept to a minimum where a case is fact-driven.
"The more fact-intensive the issue, the less outsourcing should be used since the attorney working on the [issue]" needs to be well-versed on the facts, he said, adding he would recommend outsourcing where "the research is based on pure legal issues."
In the meantime, companies like LegalEase and SuperLaw may just be the wave of the legal future.
With the realization that global outsourcing of important business matters is becoming more and more accepted, Ettinger says "the need for a better practice model is obvious," and he expects companies like his to provide attorneys with the "resources of a big firm ... no matter how small their practice or how relatively inexperienced" they may be.
If you would like to comment on this story, please contact Molly F. Dilbeck at (248) 596-2700 ext. 39 or molly.dilbeck@mi.lawyersweekly.com.
© 2006 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Let's Offshore The Lawyers
Let's Offshore The Lawyers
DuPont is farming out legal services to Asia—and saving a bundle
Mention offshore outsourcing, and Americans fume. But who would cry if we outsourced the work of lawyers, with their fat fees and endless strategies for adding years to litigation? Sounds like a great idea, but many might say it can't be done anyway. Legal work is too sensitive and technical to risk farming out to Asia.
Try telling that to DuPont (DD ), the giant chemical company. On the seventh floor of an old office building on the outskirts of Manila, 30 Filipino attorneys, including three who have passed U.S. bar exams, are seated elbow-to-elbow with 50 other staff at long tables crammed with PCs. Working in three shifts seven days a week, they read, analyze, and annotate digital images of memos, payroll and medical records, old engineering specs, and other documents that might be used as evidence in DuPont legal cases.
The operation is part of a tieup between DuPont and offshoring shop OfficeTiger (RRD ) that is testing the limits of how far legal services outsourcing can go. Attorneys and others in OfficeTiger's Philippines and India offices are helping out on more than a dozen projects, from monitoring old contracts and licensing agreements to managing documentary evidence for product-liability cases. "We want to be the center of excellence for this whole area of offshore document management," says DuPont assistant general counsel Thomas L. Sager.
The most important project is processing 2 million pages of documents vital to a DuPont case against 10 insurers. DuPont aims to recover more than $100 million in payouts to thousands of former pipefitters, insulators, mechanics, and other workers who claimed their illnesses came from exposure to asbestos in DuPont facilities. Much of the work is tedious: digitizing and indexing decades-old paperwork. But some requires judgment normally provided by U.S. lawyers, such as determining whether documents are relevant to a case or violate confidentiality.
COST-CUTTING PIONEERS
By going offshore, DuPont aims to save 40% to 60% on document work and cut up to $6 million from its annual $200 million-plus in legal spending. It also hopes to shave months off the discovery process in court cases. But the move is risky. In industries from software to customer support, corporations have run into myriad logistical and quality problems with offshore outsourcing. If OfficeTiger stumbles and doesn't have the evidence ready by December, when the asbestos case could go to trial, it could cost DuPont millions.
But if OfficeTiger delivers, it could mean big changes for the $225 billion U.S. legal services industry. DuPont's legal department has been a pioneer in cost-cutting since the early 1990s, saving more than $100 million over that time through automation, outsourcing, and reducing the number of outside law firms it uses. Offshoring is the logical next step. While firms in India, the Philippines, and elsewhere have been processing legal documents for years on a small scale, the size and complexity of DuPont's deal with OfficeTiger pushes it to a higher level. "If DuPont does well with this, you will find other companies taking a good look," says Bradford W. Hildebrandt, chairman of the legal consulting firm Hildebrandt International Inc., which estimates U.S. firms can save 25% to 35% by farming legal work to Asia. "Ultimately, there may be little limit to what can go offshore."
That doesn't mean U.S. lawyers will be getting pink slips, or even lowering their hourly fees. They're still needed for developing arguments, writing briefs, and other trial work. But DuPont figures 70% of the labor in a typical insurance or liability case can be outsourced. U.S. law firms often bill around $150 an hour for document-processing by paralegals. "Law firms historically have made much of their revenue on administrative and paralegal work you don't really need a lawyer to do," says OfficeTiger Co-CEO Joseph Sigelman. Offshore providers such as OfficeTiger, bought in April by R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. (RRD ), charge around $30 an hour. That's possible because an attorney with five years of experience can be hired for around $30,000, including benefits, in the Philippines, whose legal system is similar to America's. That's half what a veteran U.S. corporate paralegal earns, and one-fifth what a first-year attorney can fetch in New York.
Few industries seem more ripe for radical restructuring than legal services. For starters, they remain remarkably mired in paper. At its Wilmington (Del.) warehouse alone, DuPont has more than 200,000 boxes, each typically stuffed with 2,500 pieces of paper. Analyzing those documents involves photocopying the pages and shipping them to lawyers, who then pore over them.
Now, OfficeTiger staffers take portable scanners to sites where documents are stashed and zap images of scanned pages to a secure database. In minutes, Filipino attorneys can retrieve the material on their PCs. One of them is Eric Himan, a thirtysomething former corporate lawyer and Manila law school grad. "I want to work on really big, meaningful cases so that my market value can go up, rather than litigate some minor local dispute," Himan says as he reads through old e-mails relating to an asbestos case. He enjoys conference calls with top U.S. lawyers, who often ask his opinion on evidence and strategy. "Our input is valued," he says. "Not many lawyers in the Philippines get to do what we do."
VAST TIME SAVINGS
By the time the documents get back to Wilmington, they are attached to electronic files about each asbestos litigant, along with data on how damages paid by DuPont were calculated. DuPont lawyers then review the work. By delivering neatly organized and reliable digital evidence to opposing attorneys, DuPont hopes it can slash the discovery process in insurance cases to three months from an average of 18 months. So far, the work has been accurate and on schedule, says DuPont's Sager. He says the move might also send the message that DuPont can afford to fight cases more aggressively, rather than settle due to the expense. "Corporations are looking for alternative ways to buy legal services so that cost does not become an issue in deciding whether or not to defend a case," says Sager.
For OfficeTiger, success could mean a surge in business. By the end of 2007, Sigelman predicts his Asian legal team could reach 1,000 with several hundred lawyers. He also believes U.S. clients will become more willing to hand over sensitive work such as research for briefs. Is the U.S. legal industry ready for such a leap? "The proof will be in the pudding," says DuPont counsel Silvio J. DeCarli, who manages the asbestos litigation. "If this case implodes because of what OfficeTiger did or did not do, whether we save money won't be important."
DuPont is farming out legal services to Asia—and saving a bundle
Mention offshore outsourcing, and Americans fume. But who would cry if we outsourced the work of lawyers, with their fat fees and endless strategies for adding years to litigation? Sounds like a great idea, but many might say it can't be done anyway. Legal work is too sensitive and technical to risk farming out to Asia.
Try telling that to DuPont (DD ), the giant chemical company. On the seventh floor of an old office building on the outskirts of Manila, 30 Filipino attorneys, including three who have passed U.S. bar exams, are seated elbow-to-elbow with 50 other staff at long tables crammed with PCs. Working in three shifts seven days a week, they read, analyze, and annotate digital images of memos, payroll and medical records, old engineering specs, and other documents that might be used as evidence in DuPont legal cases.
The operation is part of a tieup between DuPont and offshoring shop OfficeTiger (RRD ) that is testing the limits of how far legal services outsourcing can go. Attorneys and others in OfficeTiger's Philippines and India offices are helping out on more than a dozen projects, from monitoring old contracts and licensing agreements to managing documentary evidence for product-liability cases. "We want to be the center of excellence for this whole area of offshore document management," says DuPont assistant general counsel Thomas L. Sager.
The most important project is processing 2 million pages of documents vital to a DuPont case against 10 insurers. DuPont aims to recover more than $100 million in payouts to thousands of former pipefitters, insulators, mechanics, and other workers who claimed their illnesses came from exposure to asbestos in DuPont facilities. Much of the work is tedious: digitizing and indexing decades-old paperwork. But some requires judgment normally provided by U.S. lawyers, such as determining whether documents are relevant to a case or violate confidentiality.
COST-CUTTING PIONEERS
By going offshore, DuPont aims to save 40% to 60% on document work and cut up to $6 million from its annual $200 million-plus in legal spending. It also hopes to shave months off the discovery process in court cases. But the move is risky. In industries from software to customer support, corporations have run into myriad logistical and quality problems with offshore outsourcing. If OfficeTiger stumbles and doesn't have the evidence ready by December, when the asbestos case could go to trial, it could cost DuPont millions.
But if OfficeTiger delivers, it could mean big changes for the $225 billion U.S. legal services industry. DuPont's legal department has been a pioneer in cost-cutting since the early 1990s, saving more than $100 million over that time through automation, outsourcing, and reducing the number of outside law firms it uses. Offshoring is the logical next step. While firms in India, the Philippines, and elsewhere have been processing legal documents for years on a small scale, the size and complexity of DuPont's deal with OfficeTiger pushes it to a higher level. "If DuPont does well with this, you will find other companies taking a good look," says Bradford W. Hildebrandt, chairman of the legal consulting firm Hildebrandt International Inc., which estimates U.S. firms can save 25% to 35% by farming legal work to Asia. "Ultimately, there may be little limit to what can go offshore."
That doesn't mean U.S. lawyers will be getting pink slips, or even lowering their hourly fees. They're still needed for developing arguments, writing briefs, and other trial work. But DuPont figures 70% of the labor in a typical insurance or liability case can be outsourced. U.S. law firms often bill around $150 an hour for document-processing by paralegals. "Law firms historically have made much of their revenue on administrative and paralegal work you don't really need a lawyer to do," says OfficeTiger Co-CEO Joseph Sigelman. Offshore providers such as OfficeTiger, bought in April by R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. (RRD ), charge around $30 an hour. That's possible because an attorney with five years of experience can be hired for around $30,000, including benefits, in the Philippines, whose legal system is similar to America's. That's half what a veteran U.S. corporate paralegal earns, and one-fifth what a first-year attorney can fetch in New York.
Few industries seem more ripe for radical restructuring than legal services. For starters, they remain remarkably mired in paper. At its Wilmington (Del.) warehouse alone, DuPont has more than 200,000 boxes, each typically stuffed with 2,500 pieces of paper. Analyzing those documents involves photocopying the pages and shipping them to lawyers, who then pore over them.
Now, OfficeTiger staffers take portable scanners to sites where documents are stashed and zap images of scanned pages to a secure database. In minutes, Filipino attorneys can retrieve the material on their PCs. One of them is Eric Himan, a thirtysomething former corporate lawyer and Manila law school grad. "I want to work on really big, meaningful cases so that my market value can go up, rather than litigate some minor local dispute," Himan says as he reads through old e-mails relating to an asbestos case. He enjoys conference calls with top U.S. lawyers, who often ask his opinion on evidence and strategy. "Our input is valued," he says. "Not many lawyers in the Philippines get to do what we do."
VAST TIME SAVINGS
By the time the documents get back to Wilmington, they are attached to electronic files about each asbestos litigant, along with data on how damages paid by DuPont were calculated. DuPont lawyers then review the work. By delivering neatly organized and reliable digital evidence to opposing attorneys, DuPont hopes it can slash the discovery process in insurance cases to three months from an average of 18 months. So far, the work has been accurate and on schedule, says DuPont's Sager. He says the move might also send the message that DuPont can afford to fight cases more aggressively, rather than settle due to the expense. "Corporations are looking for alternative ways to buy legal services so that cost does not become an issue in deciding whether or not to defend a case," says Sager.
For OfficeTiger, success could mean a surge in business. By the end of 2007, Sigelman predicts his Asian legal team could reach 1,000 with several hundred lawyers. He also believes U.S. clients will become more willing to hand over sensitive work such as research for briefs. Is the U.S. legal industry ready for such a leap? "The proof will be in the pudding," says DuPont counsel Silvio J. DeCarli, who manages the asbestos litigation. "If this case implodes because of what OfficeTiger did or did not do, whether we save money won't be important."
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Law firms mull outsourcing
Law firms mull outsourcing
Offshore
By Deirdre Gregg
Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle)
Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET July 2, 2006
The next industry to be affected by offshore outsourcing could be legal services.
Some local law firms are looking at the possibility of outsourcing legal services to save money and keep clients' costs down, although none so far appears to have actually done so.
A few weeks ago, Seattle-based Perkins Coie LLP formed a task force to look into offshore outsourcing. The group will likely develop some initial recommendations in the next few months.
Meanwhile, Seattle-based Lane Powell PC sent a vice president to a conference focused partly on outsourcing in New Delhi to gather information. And a few clients of Stoel Rives LLP have expressed interest in the subject.
"The legal industry is really one that historically has been reluctant to endorse change, but ... my instinct is that this is going to impact us in the same way that computers impacted lawyer productivity, that it could be that significant," said Hugh Totten, a partner in the Chicago office of Perkins Coie.
Nationally, many more law firms are considering how they might cut costs by moving portions of work to other lower-cost markets, particularly India, although few seem to have done so.
Some observers predict that outsourcing of legal services, which can range from work typically performed by paralegals to that usually done by attorneys, will accelerate as law firms respond to clients' desire to manage their costs.
"We think some (law) firms will jump out ahead and realize some significant cost savings" through offshore outsourcing, said Michael Short, vice president in the Washington, D.C., office of legal consulting firm Hildebrandt International. "In the highly competitive world of law firms, that's going to require countermoves."
Forrester Research, a market research firm based in Cambridge, Mass., has estimated that as many as 40,000 legal services jobs may move offshore by 2010, according to a 2004 study.
Meanwhile, several big corporations, including Microsoft Corp., have already outsourced some patent research work to India. Since fiscal 2004, Microsoft has been working with Intellevate India on patent research and proofreading of issued patents.
To be sure, legal services offshoring may not grow as rapidly as some expect. Most of the work that is being outsourced today seems to involve repetitive tasks in such areas as research or litigation support, and some sources don't think legal outsourcing will expand beyond those areas. Others say they have concerns about the quality of outsourced services and any liability firms might incur if an offshore attorney makes a mistake.
But it's certainly a hot topic in the legal industry, and it's not hard to see why. Published reports say legal work outsourced to India can cost one-quarter to one-third as much as the same work in the United States.
India has emerged as a primary destination for legal services outsourcing for several reasons. It has:
significantly lower costs.
highly educated, English-speaking lawyers trained in a system based on British common law, and,
a 12-hour time difference that lets U.S. attorneys request a task when leaving at night and have it completed by the time they return in the morning.
At Perkins Coie, the Puget Sound region's biggest law firm, a task force held its fourth meeting on outsourcing opportunities on June 28. Chicago partner Totten has scheduled half a dozen meetings with legal services vendors to hear about their services.
Totten said his group is still in the initial phases of investigating the topic, but thinks it could be mean substantial change for the industry.
Rob Gray, practice management director in the Portland office of Stoel Rives, said the firm has explored the possibility of outsourcing, but hasn't yet found options that meet its quality criteria.
"There's certainly interest in the legal market to explore those options," he said.
Gray said a handful of clients have asked about offshore outsourcing, and some have even considered it for their own in-house legal work.
"If you can overcome quality issues, there may be a way to deliver services to clients at higher value," he said.
Lewis Horowitz, vice president of Lane Powell, is somewhat skeptical about legal outsourcing.
"We're not hearing from clients that they want it. What we're hearing from is the marketers in India of these services, who are telling us our clients want it," he said.
In March, Horowitz attended a meeting of the World Law Group, a network of 48 independent law firms that Lane Powell belongs to, in New Delhi. For one full day out of the three-day conference, he and representatives of other law firms watched presentations from overseas legal services vendors. He said many of the services were offering the type of work that's now done by the firm's paralegals.
"They may still be more expensive than doing it in India, but there's also an advantage to having them down the hall," he said.
Still, Horowitz said, there are niches where outsourcing probably makes good economic sense.
On a national level, Hildebrandt's Short said many of his company's law firm clients have expressed interest in outsourcing. Hildebrandt has been keeping its clients apprised of the legal outsourcing market in India, and decided to form a partnership with one such service provider, OfficeTiger.
Short said law firms today are facing significant competitive pressures. Clients are saying they want to cut costs, and are segmenting work between different firms -- for example, using one firm for high-level work and another for commodity-level work. And law firms are competing with each other in a more sophisticated way than they've done in the past.
"As with anything in the law firm world, it's experiencing a slow start," he said. "But as the success is proved to other law firms, it will gain momentum very quickly."
Offshore
By Deirdre Gregg
Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle)
Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET July 2, 2006
The next industry to be affected by offshore outsourcing could be legal services.
Some local law firms are looking at the possibility of outsourcing legal services to save money and keep clients' costs down, although none so far appears to have actually done so.
A few weeks ago, Seattle-based Perkins Coie LLP formed a task force to look into offshore outsourcing. The group will likely develop some initial recommendations in the next few months.
Meanwhile, Seattle-based Lane Powell PC sent a vice president to a conference focused partly on outsourcing in New Delhi to gather information. And a few clients of Stoel Rives LLP have expressed interest in the subject.
"The legal industry is really one that historically has been reluctant to endorse change, but ... my instinct is that this is going to impact us in the same way that computers impacted lawyer productivity, that it could be that significant," said Hugh Totten, a partner in the Chicago office of Perkins Coie.
Nationally, many more law firms are considering how they might cut costs by moving portions of work to other lower-cost markets, particularly India, although few seem to have done so.
Some observers predict that outsourcing of legal services, which can range from work typically performed by paralegals to that usually done by attorneys, will accelerate as law firms respond to clients' desire to manage their costs.
"We think some (law) firms will jump out ahead and realize some significant cost savings" through offshore outsourcing, said Michael Short, vice president in the Washington, D.C., office of legal consulting firm Hildebrandt International. "In the highly competitive world of law firms, that's going to require countermoves."
Forrester Research, a market research firm based in Cambridge, Mass., has estimated that as many as 40,000 legal services jobs may move offshore by 2010, according to a 2004 study.
Meanwhile, several big corporations, including Microsoft Corp., have already outsourced some patent research work to India. Since fiscal 2004, Microsoft has been working with Intellevate India on patent research and proofreading of issued patents.
To be sure, legal services offshoring may not grow as rapidly as some expect. Most of the work that is being outsourced today seems to involve repetitive tasks in such areas as research or litigation support, and some sources don't think legal outsourcing will expand beyond those areas. Others say they have concerns about the quality of outsourced services and any liability firms might incur if an offshore attorney makes a mistake.
But it's certainly a hot topic in the legal industry, and it's not hard to see why. Published reports say legal work outsourced to India can cost one-quarter to one-third as much as the same work in the United States.
India has emerged as a primary destination for legal services outsourcing for several reasons. It has:
significantly lower costs.
highly educated, English-speaking lawyers trained in a system based on British common law, and,
a 12-hour time difference that lets U.S. attorneys request a task when leaving at night and have it completed by the time they return in the morning.
At Perkins Coie, the Puget Sound region's biggest law firm, a task force held its fourth meeting on outsourcing opportunities on June 28. Chicago partner Totten has scheduled half a dozen meetings with legal services vendors to hear about their services.
Totten said his group is still in the initial phases of investigating the topic, but thinks it could be mean substantial change for the industry.
Rob Gray, practice management director in the Portland office of Stoel Rives, said the firm has explored the possibility of outsourcing, but hasn't yet found options that meet its quality criteria.
"There's certainly interest in the legal market to explore those options," he said.
Gray said a handful of clients have asked about offshore outsourcing, and some have even considered it for their own in-house legal work.
"If you can overcome quality issues, there may be a way to deliver services to clients at higher value," he said.
Lewis Horowitz, vice president of Lane Powell, is somewhat skeptical about legal outsourcing.
"We're not hearing from clients that they want it. What we're hearing from is the marketers in India of these services, who are telling us our clients want it," he said.
In March, Horowitz attended a meeting of the World Law Group, a network of 48 independent law firms that Lane Powell belongs to, in New Delhi. For one full day out of the three-day conference, he and representatives of other law firms watched presentations from overseas legal services vendors. He said many of the services were offering the type of work that's now done by the firm's paralegals.
"They may still be more expensive than doing it in India, but there's also an advantage to having them down the hall," he said.
Still, Horowitz said, there are niches where outsourcing probably makes good economic sense.
On a national level, Hildebrandt's Short said many of his company's law firm clients have expressed interest in outsourcing. Hildebrandt has been keeping its clients apprised of the legal outsourcing market in India, and decided to form a partnership with one such service provider, OfficeTiger.
Short said law firms today are facing significant competitive pressures. Clients are saying they want to cut costs, and are segmenting work between different firms -- for example, using one firm for high-level work and another for commodity-level work. And law firms are competing with each other in a more sophisticated way than they've done in the past.
"As with anything in the law firm world, it's experiencing a slow start," he said. "But as the success is proved to other law firms, it will gain momentum very quickly."
Monday, June 19, 2006
Xerox Builds Document Management Business with Amici Purchase
Xerox Builds Document Management Business With Amici Purchase
Lou Whiteman
The Deal
June 16, 2006
Xerox Corp.'s $174 million purchase of Amici could be the first of a string of deals for the copier and printer giant as it tries to build its document management services business.
A source familiar with Stamford, Conn.-based Xerox, which announced the deal on Wednesday, said the company is seeking acquisitions that can help move its business away from hardware sales and toward technology services. The company's document management unit, which helps customers convert, organize and store documents electronically, accounts for about one-fifth of Xerox's $15 billion in annual revenue, but the company would like to expand that substantially.
Xerox has made no secret of its intention to build services as a way to diversify away from the competitive and low-margin hardware business. A strong consulting business working with customers to streamline back-office operations and improve efficiency also could push sales of the company's well-known office machines.
Leading this push as chief operating officer of Xerox Global Services is John Kelly, one-time head of NEC Corp.'s U.S. consulting subsidiary and a former managing director at tech consultancy and outsourcing firm Capgemini.
During a conference call in January, Xerox officials noted that the company ended 2005 with $1.6 billion in cash and short-term investments, money they said could be used both to repurchase stocks and make acquisitions.
Albany, N.Y.-based Amici appears to be just the sort of business Xerox is looking for. The company provides document management services to law firms, allowing clients to identify, filter and sort data contained in e-mails, text files, memos, databases and spreadsheets. Amici's Web-based hosting system allows customers to share documents with other law firms, experts and clients.
The company also provides consulting and professional services to assist attorneys in the discovery process. Citing IDC research, Xerox said this so-called e-discovery business could amount to a $2.5 billion market by 2009.
"We're identifying successful companies in niche markets that share our commitment to innovation, personalized service and document management offerings that help people work smarter, faster and better," said Xerox chairman and CEO Anne Mulcahy. "Amici brings all of these strengths to our company and, along with Xerox's litigation support services, will bring all of these benefits to our clients."
The deal, expected to close within the next 30 days, also includes an unspecified earnout. Xerox said most of Amici's 125 workers are expected to remain on board, including CEO Craig Freeman.
Amici is Xerox's largest acquisition since the company's 2000 purchase of the color printing and imaging division of Tektronix Inc. for $925 million. Analysts were underwhelmed by that deal, one of Xerox's last major moves to build its hardware before switching its focus to IT services.
Since that deal, Xerox has been in restructuring mode. Mulcahy was named CEO in 2001, and she has worked to slash costs, divest businesses and repair a balance sheet that was once loaded with $14 billion in debt.
Amici is perhaps best known for the controversy surrounding its ties to lawyer David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. He drew criticism for steering clients, including Adelphia Communications Corp., to Amici without disclosing that his children are investors in a company that indirectly owned an Amici stake.
Also backing Amici was Albany venture capital firm iDeal Ventures LLC, which helped form the company in 2002. Later that year, Amici bought crosstown rival ProductivityNet Inc., a maker of network software, and another iDeal Ventures-backed startup.
Lou Whiteman
The Deal
June 16, 2006
Xerox Corp.'s $174 million purchase of Amici could be the first of a string of deals for the copier and printer giant as it tries to build its document management services business.
A source familiar with Stamford, Conn.-based Xerox, which announced the deal on Wednesday, said the company is seeking acquisitions that can help move its business away from hardware sales and toward technology services. The company's document management unit, which helps customers convert, organize and store documents electronically, accounts for about one-fifth of Xerox's $15 billion in annual revenue, but the company would like to expand that substantially.
Xerox has made no secret of its intention to build services as a way to diversify away from the competitive and low-margin hardware business. A strong consulting business working with customers to streamline back-office operations and improve efficiency also could push sales of the company's well-known office machines.
Leading this push as chief operating officer of Xerox Global Services is John Kelly, one-time head of NEC Corp.'s U.S. consulting subsidiary and a former managing director at tech consultancy and outsourcing firm Capgemini.
During a conference call in January, Xerox officials noted that the company ended 2005 with $1.6 billion in cash and short-term investments, money they said could be used both to repurchase stocks and make acquisitions.
Albany, N.Y.-based Amici appears to be just the sort of business Xerox is looking for. The company provides document management services to law firms, allowing clients to identify, filter and sort data contained in e-mails, text files, memos, databases and spreadsheets. Amici's Web-based hosting system allows customers to share documents with other law firms, experts and clients.
The company also provides consulting and professional services to assist attorneys in the discovery process. Citing IDC research, Xerox said this so-called e-discovery business could amount to a $2.5 billion market by 2009.
"We're identifying successful companies in niche markets that share our commitment to innovation, personalized service and document management offerings that help people work smarter, faster and better," said Xerox chairman and CEO Anne Mulcahy. "Amici brings all of these strengths to our company and, along with Xerox's litigation support services, will bring all of these benefits to our clients."
The deal, expected to close within the next 30 days, also includes an unspecified earnout. Xerox said most of Amici's 125 workers are expected to remain on board, including CEO Craig Freeman.
Amici is Xerox's largest acquisition since the company's 2000 purchase of the color printing and imaging division of Tektronix Inc. for $925 million. Analysts were underwhelmed by that deal, one of Xerox's last major moves to build its hardware before switching its focus to IT services.
Since that deal, Xerox has been in restructuring mode. Mulcahy was named CEO in 2001, and she has worked to slash costs, divest businesses and repair a balance sheet that was once loaded with $14 billion in debt.
Amici is perhaps best known for the controversy surrounding its ties to lawyer David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. He drew criticism for steering clients, including Adelphia Communications Corp., to Amici without disclosing that his children are investors in a company that indirectly owned an Amici stake.
Also backing Amici was Albany venture capital firm iDeal Ventures LLC, which helped form the company in 2002. Later that year, Amici bought crosstown rival ProductivityNet Inc., a maker of network software, and another iDeal Ventures-backed startup.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Legal Outsourcing - Boon or Bane for Lawyers?
Outsourcing - Such a hated word. Especially when it happens to American jobs. Accept it. Just like you did with computers and the internet. Its now a global economy. You can either resist the change and stick to your abacus or say, 'Heck! I'll see how best can I use it for my advantage.' The same paradigm applies to the legal field. Legal Outsourcing (the onshore type) has been around for over a couple of decades if not more. Now offshoring it is just a step up (or down depending on your perspective). So legal work is being compartmentalized, piecemealed and made efficient! Is that such a bad thing? The legal field much like the medical one, has been protected for the longest time. Protected or impenetrable markets tend to become oligopolies, and we all know what happens with that! (case and point the oil prices). I have read at least one article every month on grievances against the billable hour. But is anything tangible being done about it? There have been innovations where terms like value billing have been thrown in, yet one begs the question if it was that effective why has it not been adopted throughout the legal world or atleast by a substantial portion of it? Legal Outsourcing is here to stay. It will make this market leaner and more efficient. It DOES offer greater efficiency with the time difference working to our advantage and the reduced labor costs (albeit this is not going to last forever). The labor pool might have a learning curve right now but will get better - soon. More than anything else it offers an alternative in many cases where there was none. The legal community should take a closer look at what legal outsourcing might be all about and see if it can benefit them and possibly make their lives easier.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Two Recent Victories for LegalEase!
In two recent federal cases, where LegalEase Solutions was involved in assisting plaintiffs' counsel with drafting of trial and appellate briefs, the court decided in favor of LegalEase clients. The first was a Federal Eastern District (Michigan) Court case invovling claims of civil rights violation by an African American man whose house was searched without a warrant. The defendant police department had filed a motion for summary judgment and the court ruled aginst the motion with respect to the plaintiff's fourth amendment claims.
The second case was a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case also involving a plaintiff whose civil rights were violated when he was arrested and beaten while driving an ice cream truck through a neighborhood. With the help of LegalEase, the 6th Circuit reversed the district court's decision granting defendant municipality's motion for summary judgment.
The second case was a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case also involving a plaintiff whose civil rights were violated when he was arrested and beaten while driving an ice cream truck through a neighborhood. With the help of LegalEase, the 6th Circuit reversed the district court's decision granting defendant municipality's motion for summary judgment.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
GCs Vent Their Frustrations About Outside Counsel
GCs Vent Their Frustrations About Outside Counsel
Petra Pasternak
The Recorder
May 23, 2006
Richard Gray is not fond of surprises.
Not the kind that arrive when Gray, the Claria Corp. general counsel, is on a conference call with the company's entire board of directors and his outside counsel brings up a new legal requirement or a potential problem for the first time.
Caught off guard, Gray said he once had to scramble to field the initial questions and save what could have turned into a precarious situation by telling his bosses he would look into the matter and present it at a later time. "That's not a warm and fuzzy feeling," he said. "It worked out fine, but I should never be put in that position."
Surprises are just one thing outside counsel are well-advised to keep out of their repertoire if they want to earn a GC's love.
According to a study published this year by BTI Consulting Group Inc., a Massachusetts-based legal consulting firm, only about 30 percent of GCs nationwide were satisfied with their primary law firms in 2005, down from 43.5 percent the previous year. The picture was a little rosier in Northern California, but satisfaction still dropped from 60.2 percent in 2004 to 56.8 percent last year.
BTI attributes the decline to three main factors: law firms' failure to keep up with a GC's changing needs, an inability to articulate the value of services delivered and poor communication. The survey included more than 1,000 interviews from corporate counsel at large and Fortune 1000 companies.
Fed up GCs, squeezed by budget constraints and pressure from boards of directors, are reacting to shoddy work by outside counsel by demoting and replacing their primary law firms and spreading the wealth among a larger network of secondary firms.
Nothing is more dangerous than a client who's left to assume a lawyer is playing golf or, worse, napping on their dime. So it's always a good idea to regularly gauge client satisfaction and keep aware of the following pet peeves that have peppered GCs' legal careers for decades:
Petra Pasternak
The Recorder
May 23, 2006
Richard Gray is not fond of surprises.
Not the kind that arrive when Gray, the Claria Corp. general counsel, is on a conference call with the company's entire board of directors and his outside counsel brings up a new legal requirement or a potential problem for the first time.
Caught off guard, Gray said he once had to scramble to field the initial questions and save what could have turned into a precarious situation by telling his bosses he would look into the matter and present it at a later time. "That's not a warm and fuzzy feeling," he said. "It worked out fine, but I should never be put in that position."
Surprises are just one thing outside counsel are well-advised to keep out of their repertoire if they want to earn a GC's love.
According to a study published this year by BTI Consulting Group Inc., a Massachusetts-based legal consulting firm, only about 30 percent of GCs nationwide were satisfied with their primary law firms in 2005, down from 43.5 percent the previous year. The picture was a little rosier in Northern California, but satisfaction still dropped from 60.2 percent in 2004 to 56.8 percent last year.
BTI attributes the decline to three main factors: law firms' failure to keep up with a GC's changing needs, an inability to articulate the value of services delivered and poor communication. The survey included more than 1,000 interviews from corporate counsel at large and Fortune 1000 companies.
Fed up GCs, squeezed by budget constraints and pressure from boards of directors, are reacting to shoddy work by outside counsel by demoting and replacing their primary law firms and spreading the wealth among a larger network of secondary firms.
Nothing is more dangerous than a client who's left to assume a lawyer is playing golf or, worse, napping on their dime. So it's always a good idea to regularly gauge client satisfaction and keep aware of the following pet peeves that have peppered GCs' legal careers for decades:
Friday, May 19, 2006
What does Outsourcing Really Do?
Another interesting outsourcing focused piece - Outsourcing, Schmoutsourcing! Out Is Over, from the author of "The World is Flat", Thomas Friedman.
In this piece he focuses on the increased possibilities due to globalization. Things we take for granted, like going online and buying something which is delivered to us in 2 days. Do we ever give a thought as to where the product is made, where the company whom you are buying the product from is based, who is the distributor who enables you to have the product in 2 days?
The entire process is completely transparent to the end user. That is the power of technology combined with the global economy.
Another very important point he ends with in the article, is the reduction of world poverty. People inherently are not altruistic. People in developed nations are not interested in eradicating world poverty at the cost of their comforts (for which they have worked long and hard for) or promoting dependent laziness(as has been the case with many welfare states.)
What globalization provides is an opportunity for the less developed nations to catch up. The money is not being provided to them for free. There is a price - its called hard work.
The article is available to Times Select subscribers but I am taking the liberty to quote from it.
"A short time later I was interviewing Katie Jacobs Stanton, a senior product manager at Google, and Krishna Bharat, founder of Google's India lab. They told me that Google had just launched Google Finance, but what was interesting was that Google Finance was entirely conceived by the Google team in India and then Google engineers from around the world fed into that team — rather than the project's being driven by Google headquarters in Silicon Valley...
If more countries can get just a few basic things right — enough telecom and bandwidth so their people can get connected; steadily improving education; decent, corruption-free economic governance; and the rule of law — and we can find more sources of clean energy, there is every reason for optimism that we could see even faster global growth in this century, with many more people lifted out of poverty. "
Tariq Akbar
In this piece he focuses on the increased possibilities due to globalization. Things we take for granted, like going online and buying something which is delivered to us in 2 days. Do we ever give a thought as to where the product is made, where the company whom you are buying the product from is based, who is the distributor who enables you to have the product in 2 days?
The entire process is completely transparent to the end user. That is the power of technology combined with the global economy.
Another very important point he ends with in the article, is the reduction of world poverty. People inherently are not altruistic. People in developed nations are not interested in eradicating world poverty at the cost of their comforts (for which they have worked long and hard for) or promoting dependent laziness(as has been the case with many welfare states.)
What globalization provides is an opportunity for the less developed nations to catch up. The money is not being provided to them for free. There is a price - its called hard work.
The article is available to Times Select subscribers but I am taking the liberty to quote from it.
"A short time later I was interviewing Katie Jacobs Stanton, a senior product manager at Google, and Krishna Bharat, founder of Google's India lab. They told me that Google had just launched Google Finance, but what was interesting was that Google Finance was entirely conceived by the Google team in India and then Google engineers from around the world fed into that team — rather than the project's being driven by Google headquarters in Silicon Valley...
If more countries can get just a few basic things right — enough telecom and bandwidth so their people can get connected; steadily improving education; decent, corruption-free economic governance; and the rule of law — and we can find more sources of clean energy, there is every reason for optimism that we could see even faster global growth in this century, with many more people lifted out of poverty. "
Tariq Akbar
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Virtual Help: An Outsourcing Relationship With a Virtual Assistant Can Complete Your Team
by Edward Poll
April 2006
Lawyers function best as members of a team. No lawyer can do everything. A paralegal or administrative assistant whose qualifications and skills meet your needs will effectively extend the reach and quality of your practice. You can hire such a person to work full time, on your payroll. However, technology increasingly affords an efficient alternative: the VA, or virtual assistant.
VA Relationship
VAs are paralegals or other administrative specialists who work offsite and online, creating work product to your specifications and tailored to your practice. They represent an extension of the outsourcing that lawyers and law firms have done for years. Once that outsourcing was limited to mailing and records storage services. More recently it has come to include transcription of voice files for depositions, accounting support for billing, data entry, litigation support graphics, and legal research. Such outsourced services are transparent to the client – to such an extent that they now can be performed a continent away.
The relationship with a virtual assistant is complex and rewarding. As an independent business owner, the VA is neither employee nor subordinate. VAs more closely resemble an accountant or any other business consultant with whom the lawyer has an ongoing, collaborative relationship. They become familiar with your practice and attuned to your business needs as much as any service provider engaged for a substantial length of time.
VA Selection
An excellent example of a virtual assistant practice is The Relief, a Tacoma, Washington-based firm that delivers remote administrative and legal assistant/paralegal support services to solo and small practice professionals. Danielle Keister, principal of The Relief, graciously shared with me her insights on what makes the VA relationship work from the service provider’s perspective. She recommends taking these factors into account when engaging a VA:
Is there an informative, well constructed Web site, as evidence that the VA has the technical skill and sophistication to conduct an effective online business relationship?
Conduct a personal consultation, face to face or by phone. It is not appropriate to ask for resumes or for work history beyond professional references, but the VA should be willing to provide information on experience and qualifications.
Request a business track record. Look for a VA who has been successfully in business for at least three years, and one who is actually IN business (not just working part time or providing an incomplete service package).
Does the VA provide a realistic cost structure? Inappropriately low rates can signal a lack of business sense and indicate a practice that is not profitable (and won’t be around for long). Because you want to rely on the VA long-term, you want assurance that their business is viable. Proper VA rates will average between $30 and $65 per hour. And if the work provided is paralegal in nature, don’t forget that this work can be billable client hours that you can mark up at a profit.
VA Qualifications
Beyond these business considerations, think through the professional qualifications that you want from the VA. If you’re seeking paralegal services, you should expect a certificate of completion from an accredited educational institution. Do your own research on that institution and don’t rely blindly on “ABA-approved” status. Make sure your VA paralegal can demonstrate knowledge of local rules regarding court and civil procedure, in addition to practical insights pertinent to your practice. Other relevant skills include the ability to:
Organize files and chronologies
Prepare documents for summons, complaints, answers, motions and other proceedings
Conduct investigations and summarize depositions
Perform legal research
Coordinate with outside vendors for trial preparation
Create and maintain client files.
A virtual assistant should be able to conduct all these activities electronically from a remote location. That assumes and requires compatible email, word processing, document management and database capabilities. If your word processing system is WordPerfect, engaging a VA who works only in Word can complicate and not simplify your life. The same is true for other software products: Excel versus Lotus, Quicken versus QuickBooks. There are of course other document exchange tools – f ax, overnight courier, even surface mail. But effective electronic integration is a must.
VA Versus Employee
One of the most important considerations about the outsourced VA relationship is to ensure that it is in fact an engagement of an independent contractor. Do not make the mistake of thinking that every part-time or offsite paralegal or legal assistant qualifies. The IRS has very clear guidelines to determine whether a hired individual is an independent contractor or an employee for federal tax purposes. An employee is subject to the will and control of the employer not only as to what shall be done, but as to how it shall be done – an employee does not have independent control of the work process. By contrast, The Relief, as a true independent contractor, states on its Web site: “Our expertise is based on over 20 ears top-level administrative experience and training. Our legal support services for attorneys and investigators are based on paralegal and investigative training and experience.” If you engage a service provider who cannot provide the same assurance, they likely are not a true VA.
VA Versus Temp
Note also that a VA relationship is different from that with a temporary employment agency. Temps can be a viable solution to small firm or solo personnel needs, but if you need anything other than the most basic clerical assistance it would be wise to consider and select a temporary on a long-term basis, known as “temp to perm.” This option accommodates extended projects and protracted litigation, but should only be pursued with a temporary agency that specializes in temporary legal personnel.
The VA Advantage
Virtual assistants are an outsourcing strategy that can give lawyers the best of all solutions to the need for help. You get a professional team member, selected to your criteria, attuned to the business and professional needs of your practice. You are relieved of the cost (and potential liability) that in-house staff can represent. Best of all, you have an efficient solution to “The Business of Law”®, one that frees you to do the client representation and development work that you want to do. As Ms. Keister remarked to me, “ When I first started, I wondered if attorneys were so above the crowd that concerns like working at a profit, operating efficiently, finding ideal clients and dealing with problem ones were just too petty and far beneath them. Since then, I’ve seen that they have the same marketing and operating issues that any other business has.” Help from a knowledgeable virtual assistant can be a major step in resolving them.
April 2006
Lawyers function best as members of a team. No lawyer can do everything. A paralegal or administrative assistant whose qualifications and skills meet your needs will effectively extend the reach and quality of your practice. You can hire such a person to work full time, on your payroll. However, technology increasingly affords an efficient alternative: the VA, or virtual assistant.
VA Relationship
VAs are paralegals or other administrative specialists who work offsite and online, creating work product to your specifications and tailored to your practice. They represent an extension of the outsourcing that lawyers and law firms have done for years. Once that outsourcing was limited to mailing and records storage services. More recently it has come to include transcription of voice files for depositions, accounting support for billing, data entry, litigation support graphics, and legal research. Such outsourced services are transparent to the client – to such an extent that they now can be performed a continent away.
The relationship with a virtual assistant is complex and rewarding. As an independent business owner, the VA is neither employee nor subordinate. VAs more closely resemble an accountant or any other business consultant with whom the lawyer has an ongoing, collaborative relationship. They become familiar with your practice and attuned to your business needs as much as any service provider engaged for a substantial length of time.
VA Selection
An excellent example of a virtual assistant practice is The Relief, a Tacoma, Washington-based firm that delivers remote administrative and legal assistant/paralegal support services to solo and small practice professionals. Danielle Keister, principal of The Relief, graciously shared with me her insights on what makes the VA relationship work from the service provider’s perspective. She recommends taking these factors into account when engaging a VA:
Is there an informative, well constructed Web site, as evidence that the VA has the technical skill and sophistication to conduct an effective online business relationship?
Conduct a personal consultation, face to face or by phone. It is not appropriate to ask for resumes or for work history beyond professional references, but the VA should be willing to provide information on experience and qualifications.
Request a business track record. Look for a VA who has been successfully in business for at least three years, and one who is actually IN business (not just working part time or providing an incomplete service package).
Does the VA provide a realistic cost structure? Inappropriately low rates can signal a lack of business sense and indicate a practice that is not profitable (and won’t be around for long). Because you want to rely on the VA long-term, you want assurance that their business is viable. Proper VA rates will average between $30 and $65 per hour. And if the work provided is paralegal in nature, don’t forget that this work can be billable client hours that you can mark up at a profit.
VA Qualifications
Beyond these business considerations, think through the professional qualifications that you want from the VA. If you’re seeking paralegal services, you should expect a certificate of completion from an accredited educational institution. Do your own research on that institution and don’t rely blindly on “ABA-approved” status. Make sure your VA paralegal can demonstrate knowledge of local rules regarding court and civil procedure, in addition to practical insights pertinent to your practice. Other relevant skills include the ability to:
Organize files and chronologies
Prepare documents for summons, complaints, answers, motions and other proceedings
Conduct investigations and summarize depositions
Perform legal research
Coordinate with outside vendors for trial preparation
Create and maintain client files.
A virtual assistant should be able to conduct all these activities electronically from a remote location. That assumes and requires compatible email, word processing, document management and database capabilities. If your word processing system is WordPerfect, engaging a VA who works only in Word can complicate and not simplify your life. The same is true for other software products: Excel versus Lotus, Quicken versus QuickBooks. There are of course other document exchange tools – f ax, overnight courier, even surface mail. But effective electronic integration is a must.
VA Versus Employee
One of the most important considerations about the outsourced VA relationship is to ensure that it is in fact an engagement of an independent contractor. Do not make the mistake of thinking that every part-time or offsite paralegal or legal assistant qualifies. The IRS has very clear guidelines to determine whether a hired individual is an independent contractor or an employee for federal tax purposes. An employee is subject to the will and control of the employer not only as to what shall be done, but as to how it shall be done – an employee does not have independent control of the work process. By contrast, The Relief, as a true independent contractor, states on its Web site: “Our expertise is based on over 20 ears top-level administrative experience and training. Our legal support services for attorneys and investigators are based on paralegal and investigative training and experience.” If you engage a service provider who cannot provide the same assurance, they likely are not a true VA.
VA Versus Temp
Note also that a VA relationship is different from that with a temporary employment agency. Temps can be a viable solution to small firm or solo personnel needs, but if you need anything other than the most basic clerical assistance it would be wise to consider and select a temporary on a long-term basis, known as “temp to perm.” This option accommodates extended projects and protracted litigation, but should only be pursued with a temporary agency that specializes in temporary legal personnel.
The VA Advantage
Virtual assistants are an outsourcing strategy that can give lawyers the best of all solutions to the need for help. You get a professional team member, selected to your criteria, attuned to the business and professional needs of your practice. You are relieved of the cost (and potential liability) that in-house staff can represent. Best of all, you have an efficient solution to “The Business of Law”®, one that frees you to do the client representation and development work that you want to do. As Ms. Keister remarked to me, “ When I first started, I wondered if attorneys were so above the crowd that concerns like working at a profit, operating efficiently, finding ideal clients and dealing with problem ones were just too petty and far beneath them. Since then, I’ve seen that they have the same marketing and operating issues that any other business has.” Help from a knowledgeable virtual assistant can be a major step in resolving them.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Should You Bring Litigation In-House?
Should You Bring Litigation In-House?
Blake Guy
Legal Times
May 5, 2006
At first, the term "in-house litigation" seems rife with contradiction. The legal departments of most companies simply are not set up to handle litigation without significant help from outside counsel.
Of course, companies should consider a number of factors -- company size, the nature and scope of the current litigation docket, available budget -- before they decide whether some or all of their litigation will be handled in-house.
At BearingPoint we have developed an approach that breaks with the traditional role of an in-house litigation team. Drawing upon my experiences since joining the BearingPoint litigation team, in December 2003, I can offer a sort of preliminary guide for companies that may be considering bringing some portion of their litigation docket in-house. It is as much a reflection on lessons learned as it is a set of practical recommendations to be considered before companies make such a move.
SELECTING A MODEL
The work of an in-house litigation team can cover a number of different areas. Generally, however, the litigation model for most companies will fall into one of three categories: management of outside counsel, handling all litigation in-house or a combination of the first two (a "hybrid" model).
The first step in deciding whether to move all or part of a company's litigation in-house is to define which model will be used. At BearingPoint we use what I would call a hybrid litigation model. For example, the majority of single-plaintiff employment disputes are handled in-house with minimal or no assistance from outside counsel.
Similarly, commercial disputes that fall below a flexible threshold in terms of scope and potential liability are handled in-house. But in cases that are clearly beyond the available resources or expertise of the litigation team, we turn to outside counsel, and one of the company's litigators will manage, direct and assist with their approach.
Defining which model will be used helps to establish expectations, set objectives and attract the right talent. Whatever the model, the company must commit to it (in other words, invest in the model) and identify what it expects in return for its investment. Once the model has been determined, the next step is to consider what resources will be available to the team.
RESOURCES
How will the litigation team be staffed? Of course, the quality of an in-house litigation team will be heavily influenced by compensation. In order to attract litigators who will produce results comparable to those obtained by outside counsel, compensation packages need to be established that, although below market rates for private law firms, are sufficiently generous to lure senior associates away from the comfort and stability of private practice.
Though they are increasingly more difficult to find, the focus should be on locating and recruiting attorneys who have tried cases and negotiated settlements in cases otherwise destined for trial. Rather than concentrating on attorneys who have toiled for years in the litigation departments of large law firms with little or no practical trial experience, try to staff the in-house litigation team with trial attorneys who have had meaningful trial and negotiation experience.
Trial attorneys will generally have a better feel for how the facts, as well as a company's explanation of those facts, will play out in a courtroom. Consequently, an experienced trial attorney will better serve the company's need to quickly assess and reassess the advantages and disadvantages of taking a case to trial.
In addition, it's important to invest in high-quality paralegals and administrative support. In order to properly staff a case, even a case that can be handled by a single in-house attorney, paralegal support is essential. In fact, the higher the quality of the paralegal staff, the more likely it is the in-house litigator can take on additional litigation matters without a decline in the manner in which he handles each case. In a department where in-house litigators are truly expected to serve as lead counsel on their cases, there should be one paralegal for every two, or maybe three, in-house litigators.
Of course, technology can play a huge role in allowing in-house litigators to manage their docket without the vast (and expensive) resources available at most law firms. In particular, there are two technology resources that I believe are non-negotiable essentials. First, the company must invest in commercially available software that can be used to collect, store, preserve, organize, search and produce documentation.
Without such an investment, the nature, size and number of cases that can be handled in-house will be vastly reduced. Second, the company must make available to its litigation team the full panoply of research and data available through Lexis or Westlaw. Without this basic but critical resource, a company forces its litigation team to compete on an uneven playing field.
USING OUTSIDE COUNSEL?
Although the motivation for handling litigation matters in-house is often related to growth in expenditures on outside counsel and other vendors, it would be foolhardy to think that outside counsel can be dispensed with altogether. In fact, outside counsel can play a number of roles for companies that elect to handle more litigation matters in-house.
First, there will always be a need to associate with local counsel in jurisdictions where the responsible in-house litigator is not licensed. In this scenario, local counsel should be viewed as a useful part of the litigation team. In fact, local counsel should be selected based on their knowledge and familiarity with the court, the judge, the opposing counsel, the opposing party and the jury pool. Furthermore, in the event of unexpected developments, local counsel will need to stay familiar with the case in order to assume first-chair responsibilities if necessary.
Second, outside counsel can be used in a second-chair capacity. Under this approach, outside counsel is not responsible for directing how a case is handled but is responsible for assisting in-house counsel in executing the specific game plan. The in-house litigator remains responsible for taking and defending depositions, preparing or responding to motions, and serving as lead counsel for negotiations or the trial.
Third, in those instances where the resources of the in-house litigation team are lacking, outside counsel can be used in an economically smart way. For example, some litigation matters involve extensive paralegal support but can otherwise be handled by a single litigation attorney. Other litigation matters involve voluminous document review and processing, but once that is complete, one attorney can do most of the rest of the work.
In instances such as these, it is helpful to establish relationships with outside counsel that will allow an in-house litigator to lean on the raw manpower that outside counsel can usually provide with very little advance notice.
Finally, no in-house litigation team, whether it uses the hybrid model or not, can reasonably expect to handle all litigation matters that come through the door. Most in-house teams will never match the resources, size and flexibility of outside counsel.
Not only will outside counsel remain necessary to handle overflow litigation, but a number of dispute categories should always go to outside counsel. These categories include "bet the company" litigation, class actions, significant intellectual property disputes, criminal matters, grand jury subpoenas, Securities and Exchange Commission issues and disputes with current or former executives.
THE BENEFITS
Handling the right litigation matters in-house can save a company money that otherwise would be spent on outside counsel. It also removes one of the common settlement leverage points often raised by opposing counsel.
For example, a company may decide it is going to handle most or all of its employment litigation in-house. Alternatively, it may decide it is going to handle in-house all commercial litigation with exposure under $1 million. In the traditional management model, these are the types of cases that can quickly start to become too small to defend.
As the fees paid to outside counsel start to approach the amount of the underlying claim, it is only natural to question whether the cost of defense is (or ever was) justified. By assigning just three or four of these cases each year to an in-house litigator, assuming that the results will be similar to what outside counsel would achieve, a company will more than offset the investment it makes in each of its litigators.
In settlement negotiations, the less exposure there is to the company, the more likely the other side will emphasize the cost (such as outside-counsel fees) that the company will still have to incur before it can get rid of the case. Handling certain litigation matters in-house can minimize or eliminate this pressure during the negotiation process, and the company can make a decision more focused on the anticipated outcome than the cost of obtaining it.
More than once, in an attempt to exploit the expense of defending against an employment lawsuit, I have been reminded by opposing counsel that, either by statute or agreement, "My client will incur no attorneys fees in this matter."
It is always nice to be in a position to reply, "That's great. Neither will mine."
Blake Guy is an associate corporate counsel with BearingPoint Inc., based in McLean, Va. BearingPoint is a global management consulting, systems integration, and managed services company.
Blake Guy
Legal Times
May 5, 2006
At first, the term "in-house litigation" seems rife with contradiction. The legal departments of most companies simply are not set up to handle litigation without significant help from outside counsel.
Of course, companies should consider a number of factors -- company size, the nature and scope of the current litigation docket, available budget -- before they decide whether some or all of their litigation will be handled in-house.
At BearingPoint we have developed an approach that breaks with the traditional role of an in-house litigation team. Drawing upon my experiences since joining the BearingPoint litigation team, in December 2003, I can offer a sort of preliminary guide for companies that may be considering bringing some portion of their litigation docket in-house. It is as much a reflection on lessons learned as it is a set of practical recommendations to be considered before companies make such a move.
SELECTING A MODEL
The work of an in-house litigation team can cover a number of different areas. Generally, however, the litigation model for most companies will fall into one of three categories: management of outside counsel, handling all litigation in-house or a combination of the first two (a "hybrid" model).
The first step in deciding whether to move all or part of a company's litigation in-house is to define which model will be used. At BearingPoint we use what I would call a hybrid litigation model. For example, the majority of single-plaintiff employment disputes are handled in-house with minimal or no assistance from outside counsel.
Similarly, commercial disputes that fall below a flexible threshold in terms of scope and potential liability are handled in-house. But in cases that are clearly beyond the available resources or expertise of the litigation team, we turn to outside counsel, and one of the company's litigators will manage, direct and assist with their approach.
Defining which model will be used helps to establish expectations, set objectives and attract the right talent. Whatever the model, the company must commit to it (in other words, invest in the model) and identify what it expects in return for its investment. Once the model has been determined, the next step is to consider what resources will be available to the team.
RESOURCES
How will the litigation team be staffed? Of course, the quality of an in-house litigation team will be heavily influenced by compensation. In order to attract litigators who will produce results comparable to those obtained by outside counsel, compensation packages need to be established that, although below market rates for private law firms, are sufficiently generous to lure senior associates away from the comfort and stability of private practice.
Though they are increasingly more difficult to find, the focus should be on locating and recruiting attorneys who have tried cases and negotiated settlements in cases otherwise destined for trial. Rather than concentrating on attorneys who have toiled for years in the litigation departments of large law firms with little or no practical trial experience, try to staff the in-house litigation team with trial attorneys who have had meaningful trial and negotiation experience.
Trial attorneys will generally have a better feel for how the facts, as well as a company's explanation of those facts, will play out in a courtroom. Consequently, an experienced trial attorney will better serve the company's need to quickly assess and reassess the advantages and disadvantages of taking a case to trial.
In addition, it's important to invest in high-quality paralegals and administrative support. In order to properly staff a case, even a case that can be handled by a single in-house attorney, paralegal support is essential. In fact, the higher the quality of the paralegal staff, the more likely it is the in-house litigator can take on additional litigation matters without a decline in the manner in which he handles each case. In a department where in-house litigators are truly expected to serve as lead counsel on their cases, there should be one paralegal for every two, or maybe three, in-house litigators.
Of course, technology can play a huge role in allowing in-house litigators to manage their docket without the vast (and expensive) resources available at most law firms. In particular, there are two technology resources that I believe are non-negotiable essentials. First, the company must invest in commercially available software that can be used to collect, store, preserve, organize, search and produce documentation.
Without such an investment, the nature, size and number of cases that can be handled in-house will be vastly reduced. Second, the company must make available to its litigation team the full panoply of research and data available through Lexis or Westlaw. Without this basic but critical resource, a company forces its litigation team to compete on an uneven playing field.
USING OUTSIDE COUNSEL?
Although the motivation for handling litigation matters in-house is often related to growth in expenditures on outside counsel and other vendors, it would be foolhardy to think that outside counsel can be dispensed with altogether. In fact, outside counsel can play a number of roles for companies that elect to handle more litigation matters in-house.
First, there will always be a need to associate with local counsel in jurisdictions where the responsible in-house litigator is not licensed. In this scenario, local counsel should be viewed as a useful part of the litigation team. In fact, local counsel should be selected based on their knowledge and familiarity with the court, the judge, the opposing counsel, the opposing party and the jury pool. Furthermore, in the event of unexpected developments, local counsel will need to stay familiar with the case in order to assume first-chair responsibilities if necessary.
Second, outside counsel can be used in a second-chair capacity. Under this approach, outside counsel is not responsible for directing how a case is handled but is responsible for assisting in-house counsel in executing the specific game plan. The in-house litigator remains responsible for taking and defending depositions, preparing or responding to motions, and serving as lead counsel for negotiations or the trial.
Third, in those instances where the resources of the in-house litigation team are lacking, outside counsel can be used in an economically smart way. For example, some litigation matters involve extensive paralegal support but can otherwise be handled by a single litigation attorney. Other litigation matters involve voluminous document review and processing, but once that is complete, one attorney can do most of the rest of the work.
In instances such as these, it is helpful to establish relationships with outside counsel that will allow an in-house litigator to lean on the raw manpower that outside counsel can usually provide with very little advance notice.
Finally, no in-house litigation team, whether it uses the hybrid model or not, can reasonably expect to handle all litigation matters that come through the door. Most in-house teams will never match the resources, size and flexibility of outside counsel.
Not only will outside counsel remain necessary to handle overflow litigation, but a number of dispute categories should always go to outside counsel. These categories include "bet the company" litigation, class actions, significant intellectual property disputes, criminal matters, grand jury subpoenas, Securities and Exchange Commission issues and disputes with current or former executives.
THE BENEFITS
Handling the right litigation matters in-house can save a company money that otherwise would be spent on outside counsel. It also removes one of the common settlement leverage points often raised by opposing counsel.
For example, a company may decide it is going to handle most or all of its employment litigation in-house. Alternatively, it may decide it is going to handle in-house all commercial litigation with exposure under $1 million. In the traditional management model, these are the types of cases that can quickly start to become too small to defend.
As the fees paid to outside counsel start to approach the amount of the underlying claim, it is only natural to question whether the cost of defense is (or ever was) justified. By assigning just three or four of these cases each year to an in-house litigator, assuming that the results will be similar to what outside counsel would achieve, a company will more than offset the investment it makes in each of its litigators.
In settlement negotiations, the less exposure there is to the company, the more likely the other side will emphasize the cost (such as outside-counsel fees) that the company will still have to incur before it can get rid of the case. Handling certain litigation matters in-house can minimize or eliminate this pressure during the negotiation process, and the company can make a decision more focused on the anticipated outcome than the cost of obtaining it.
More than once, in an attempt to exploit the expense of defending against an employment lawsuit, I have been reminded by opposing counsel that, either by statute or agreement, "My client will incur no attorneys fees in this matter."
It is always nice to be in a position to reply, "That's great. Neither will mine."
Blake Guy is an associate corporate counsel with BearingPoint Inc., based in McLean, Va. BearingPoint is a global management consulting, systems integration, and managed services company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
