Outsourcing and the Globalizing Legal Profession

JAYANTH K. KRISHNAN

Abstract:

The issue of outsourcing jobs abroad stirs great emotion among Americans. Economic free-traders fiercely defend outsourcing as a positive for the U.S. economy while critics contend that corporate desire for low wages solely drives this practice. In this study I focus on a specific type of outsourcing, one which has received scant scholarly attention to date - legal outsourcing. Indeed because the work is often paralegal in nature, many see the outsourcing of legal jobs overseas as no different from other types of outsourcing. But by using as my case studies both the United States and India, the latter which is receiving an ever-increasing amount of outsourced American legal work today, I describe how there are many forms to the legal outsourcing model and how this practice can entail a range of legal services.

This article, however, moves beyond providing a descriptive account of legal outsourcing. Legal outsourcing to India is occurring against the backdrop of an Indian legal system in crisis. For those who are fortunate to benefit from legal outsourcing, the pay-offs are indeed rewarding. But most Indians of course are not participants in - nor beneficiaries of - this practice. In fact, in everyday parlance the word "legal" itself in India is associated with a process that is delay-ridden, backlogged, and unduly expensive. On its face it might seem that legal outsourcing is unconnected to the problems that have long plagued India's legal system. Yet as I will argue, in addition to having an ethical obligation to provide assistance to the legal environment upon which they draw, those engaging in legal outsourcing also have an economic incentive to ensure that India has a better-operating legal system. Thus, as a means of raising much needed revenue to fund its legal reform efforts, India, as I propose, might levy a minimal fee on U.S. legal outsourcers, and as I explain, because strengthening the rule of law is ultimately in their financial interest, these American investors may well accept shouldering such a cost.

Keywords: legal, outsourcing, india, litigation, comparative law, intellecutal property, corporate social responsibility

Contact Information for JAYANTH K. KRISHNAN (Contact Author)

Email address for JAYANTH K. KRISHNAN
William Mitchell College of Law
875 Summit Ave
St. Paul , MN 55105-3076
United States
651-290-7504 (Phone)

“ The above article has been reprinted from SSRN and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”

LegalEase Solutions assists in Litigation Victories

Sole practitioner Jason Gower, Esq., recently partnered with Legalease Solutions to achieve a major victory for his client, Cheri Gomez, a Michigan day care owner. Two licensed, professional day care assistants were caring for six children when a toddler managed to exit the back door to a neighbor’s house. A complaint was filed, and only days later the State Department of Human services announced that Gomez’ business, Emily's Playmates Day Care, would be shut down and its license revoked.

With the help of Legalease Solutions, Jason Gower was able to get the decision overturned. Gower cited the facts that the offending employees had been fired, that Gomez had an exemplary eight-year record of providing quality day care, without incident, that she has earned awards for excellence in day care, that numerous families came to her defense, and that the State had made a hasty, uninformed decision to revoke Gomez’ license, without adequate investigation. A Bay County Circuit Court Judge agreed, and Gomez has now been given the go ahead to resume her day care business

Legalease Solutions also scored a recent victory in federal court. A prominent, Michigan civil-rights attorney teamed with Legalease Solutions to appeal a District Court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Convinced by the appellate brief, the Circuit Court overturned the lower court and remanded on one of the major issues in the case.

Legalease Solutions has continued to take on a wide variety of projects this month including support of a case likely to reach the US Supreme Court. In a litigation support project, a major, Detroit law firm involved in a large, class-action suit against the government called upon Legalease solutions to review and index thousands of medical discovery documents. Legalease Solutions has also produced legal research memos this month for clients needing answers on diverse topics ranging from whether an Ohio court has jurisdiction to modify a spousal support order to how a client can get an extension of the time to file for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Legalease is also working on a motion to dismiss counterclaims in a Pennsylvania contract dispute.

Recent Case Shows Dangers of Electronic Discovery Mishaps

With practitioners struggling to apply new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dealing with electronically stored information, the recent opinion in In Re NTL, Inc., illustrates the dangers of missteps in electronic discovery. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck administered the harsh sanction of an adverse inference instruction for spoliation of electronic evidence.

The problems began in 2002 when Plaintiffs filed a class-action suit against NTL (Old NTL) for securities violations. Attorneys issued “hold memos,” instructing employees not to destroy documents that could be relevant to litigation. NTL went through a bankruptcy, after which it emerged as two distinct organizations: NTL Europe, the successor to Old NTL and a continuing defendant in the litigation, and NTL, Inc. (New NTL). When Plaintiffs requested discovery, NTL Europe responded by denying it had any responsive documents because they were all in the hands of New NTL. Therefore, Plaintiffs went through the process of obtaining, at their own expense, non-party discovery from New NTL. Even so, a large percentage of emails and electronic documents from key officers were missing.

A series of discovery missteps was revealed by depositions. First, there was an access agreement, established as part of the bankruptcy demerger, that allowed NTL Europe to freely obtain documents from New NTL for use in complying with its legal obligations. In addition to being angry that counsel did not reveal the agreement at an earlier stage, Magistrate Judge Peck held that the access agreement gave NTL Europe control over the documents, regardless of the physical dislocation. NTL Europe therefore had a responsibility to turn them over in discovery, rather than force Plaintiffs to go through the expensive process of obtaining informal, non-party discovery.

The second misstep was NTL’s failure to preserve electronically-stored information. As soon as NTL reasonably anticipated litigation, it had a duty to preserve relevant documents by suspending its normal document destruction policies and implementing a litigation hold. The two hold memos issued were insufficient. Many employees did not receive them, and others ignored them. Neither NTL company reminded its employees to preserve relevant documents and electronically-stored information. New NTL outsourced its IT systems to IBM without communicating any litigation-hold instructions. Moreover, New NTL replaced its computers, donating the old ones to charity, without any regard for saving the emails on the computers. As a result of all this, responsive e-mails and documents from key players involved in the litigation were lost. Magistrate Judge Peck held that the conduct constituted gross negligence, a culpable state of mind. Because NTL had control over relevant documents, and with a culpable state of mind failed in its duty to preserve those documents, a negative inference instruction was warranted.

There are several lessons to be learned from the case. In the global, electronic business environment, control is an expansive concept unlimited by physical geography. It is essential for counsel to get a handle on the client’s information system and know exactly what information the client actually controls. It is not sufficient to passively issue litigation hold memos. Counsel must take active steps to ensure compliance with the litigation hold and to prevent destruction of electronically stored information. This requires a working familiarity with client’s technology, and technological policies. As illustrated in the case, allowing business to proceed as usual can be extremely costly.

Legal Freelancing??

25 March 2007
Ashish

What the heck..Is it possible?? How do you do it? Well it is a tough question to answer, specially when you are in India and your clients are in US or Europe. There are tools and technologies to help you out, but the field is too traditional to handle. The current scenario is that legal outsourcing firms are spreading their businesses and getting more and more clients. But then, you are a freelancer, working alone, with limited resources and handful of knowledge. Can you go ahead with it or it is just too cumbersome to find a client?

Right now the scenario is that the outsourced legal jobs are mainly in IPR, contract drafting, document reviews or legal research. Well, the clients are abroad and you are going to approach them...how?

Get in touch with freelance website: These websites have a handful of projects listed (Elance being the best provider). But, the problem is that there are big players waiting for it, and you have tough time convincing the buyers. The lawyers from US have a benefit of being easily accessible to the client, being able to understand them and having years of experience. What to do now..Again the cost is the key...how much you bid and what portfolio you show. Be patient, it will take some time for you to get your first project and hopefully by then, impatient will not wait (reducing competition)!

Get in touch with law firms: These law firms (in India and abroad) often look for freelancers to carry out there jobs cheaply. The Indian law firms are in the phase of transition from serving traditional Indian clients to handling foreign clients. So they so called half established business, which are either looking for a VC to invest or striving to be self sustainable in due time.

The path to freelance in legal area is foggy though I believe its worth pursuing.

“ The above article has been reprinted from ashiish.blogspot.com and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”

Let us begin our day with a smile....:)

After going through Doug's article on legalese, I thought this is an apt metaphor:

A Contract Law professor asked one of his students, "If you were to give someone an orange, how would you go about it?"
The student replied, "Here is an orange"
The professor was outraged. "No! No! Think like a lawyer!"
Finally the professor replied, "Okay, I tell you.
"I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate and interests, rights, title, claim and advantages of and in, a fruit, popularly known as orange, together with all its rind, juice, pulp, and seeds, and all rights and advantages with full power to bite, cut, freeze and otherwise eat, the same, or give the same away with and without the pulp, juice, rind and seeds, notwithstanding anything contained herein before or hereinafter or in any other deed, deeds or instruments of whatever nature or kind to the contrary."

Turning Legalese Into LegalEASE

Comes now, the author of this article who, pursuant to said article, for the reasons set forth herein, prays inter alia, for relief from the antiquated expressions, needless Latinisms, and convoluted legalese that plagues most legal writing. Stubbornly clinging to language that they would never use in any other context, many legal writers have an irrational aversion to expressing themselves in plain English. But is it really necessary to “pray” for relief rather than ask for it? Is it more convincing to argue that the client is entitled to relief “pursuant” to Section 4.16 rather than merely “under” Section 4.16? And, is the Plaintiff really coming now? The general consensus is that the answer to all three questions is a resounding “no,” and that legal writing is, in fact, much more effective without the legalese.

The Plain-English Movement

Over the past two decades, the movement away from legalese and toward legalEASE has been palpable and heartening. In his book, “the Winning Brief,” legal writing guru Bryan Garner includes chapters on such tips as “eliminate the jargon known as legalese,” “strike pursuant to from your vocabulary,” and “don’t use such as a pronoun.” The University of Virginia School of Law alumni page touts its legal research and writing program as helping students “win the battle against legalese.” A UCLA professor publishes an online page entitled “eschew, evade, and/or eradicate legalease.” We are bombarded by advertisements for CLE writing seminars that promise to teach us to how to write clearly, in plain English. Yet, many attorneys continue to cling to their legalese.

Resistance to Abandoning Legalese

It seems evident that confusing jargon is the enemy of clarity and persuasiveness, but the fact that we need to attend seminars or read books to teach us how to write in simple English is a testament to how deeply engrained this strange lawyerly language has become. Why the resistance? One explanation may be that aspiring attorneys spend three years in law school reading cases—decisions that are often centuries old—and assume that 21st century lawyers should write like 19th century judges. They continue to write in this style out of habit, or a misguided sense of tradition. Other lawyers are convinced that legalese is more precise. However in most cases the opposite is true: legalese is less precise, redundant (“cease and desist,” “by and through counsel”), and unwieldy (hereinafter, “unwieldy”).
Underlying the resistance may be a vague, insecure sense that lawyers need to write in legalease in order to sound lawyerly and separate themselves from the rest of the population. After all, can’t any person of average intelligence draft a contract or an appellate brief in plain English? The answer, of course, is no. Replacing the “parties hereto” with “Jones and Smith” devalues the importance of attorneys no more than calling a megapixel a “millionth of a screen” would render computer technicians obsolete. Lawyers aren’t paid for their ability to wield incomprehensible jargon. Rather a unique ability to reason like a lawyer, to weave persuasive arguments from facts and precedent, and to pay exacting attention to detail, separates legal writers from the rest of the population. Of course, there will always be a unique legal lexicon, filled with such terms of art as “fee simple,” and “res judicata.” Every profession has its jargon. But the legal profession is the only one that has felt the need to have its own pronouns, unique to the English language, and to use same to alter said language.
In Conclusion

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, we respectfully request that this honorable reader abandon legalese and start making clear arguments in plain English.

--Doug Groene, Esq.

New York City Bar Weighs in On Overseas Legal Outsourcing

The exponential growth of overseas legal outsourcing in recent years has benefited the legal profession in many ways, not the least of which is to level the playing field, allowing smaller firms or sole practitioners affordable access to the type of resources previously enjoyed only by large firms with the capacity to throw an army of lawyers, paralegals, and legal assistants at a given project. But the practice has also raised ethical considerations, as attorneys struggle to apply traditional rules of professional responsibility to an increasingly global legal industry.

Last summer, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics weighed in on the ethics of overseas outsourcing in a formal opinion, published online at http://www.nycbar.org/.

Attorney Supervision is Key

Like almost every other ethics opinion from various jurisdictions that have considered the issue, the New York City Bar Association affirmed that there is nothing inherently unethical about outsourcing legal support services to overseas attorneys or laypersons. Lawyers within firms have routinely delegated tasks to clerks, secretaries, and other laypersons, and delegating research, brief writing, or similar tasks to overseas firms is analytically no different. In both cases the key is supervision over the non-lawyer.

The outsourcing attorney must, at all times, shoulder complete responsibility for the work. This entails setting the appropriate scope for the project, and vetting the non-lawyer’s work to ensure its quality. The opinion suggests that, in order to ensure proper supervision, the hiring attorney should obtain background information on the overseas firm and the non-lawyer working on the project, conduct reference checks, interview the non-lawyer in advance, and maintain communication during the project.

Client Consent May Be Necessary

The opinion also considers the thorny issue of protecting client confidences. It is often necessary to reveal confidences to the overseas lawyers in order for them to properly complete a project. But many overseas jurisdictions have less stringent rules of confidentiality. The ethical solution, according to the opinion, is for the hiring attorney to obtain the client's informed consent in advance. The client should be told which confidences will be shared, and the extent to which the rules of confidentiality in the foreign jurisdiction may offer less protection.
Like the New York State Bar Association, the New York City Bar concluded that attorneys do not need to reflexively inform clients every time work is to be outsourced overseas to a non-lawyer. However, the hiring attorney does have a duty to disclose the outsourcing when non-lawyers will play a significant role in the matter, when client confidences are to be shared, when the client expects that only the law firm and its personnel will be working on the matter, or when non-lawyers are to be billed to clients on a basis other than cost. In fact, absent a specific agreement with the client, a New York attorney should charge no more than the direct cost of the outsourcing and a reasonable allocation of direct overhead expenses from the outsourcing.

The New York City Bar opinion concluded that a lawyer may ethically outsource legal support work overseas provided the hiring attorney rigorously supervises the non-lawyers, takes measures to protect client confidences and avoid conflicts of interest, obtains client consent when necessary, and bills appropriately.

--Doug Groene, Esq., Staff Attorney

'A Modest Proposal' on How to Make Your Billables

The Snark
Fulton County Daily Report
January 29, 2007

According to rumor and legend, there was a time when lawyers, including Big Firm lawyers, did not have to bill a minimum number of hours each year. Apparently, they were merely required to get their work done. Madness.
Luckily, some managing partner figured out that Big Firms could make more money off of their Associate Cogs (and even their Partners) by requiring them to bill clients for a minimum number of hours each year.
As the "market" demands that Cogs get larger and larger paychecks, many Big Firms pay for these raises by steadily increasing the number of hours an associate must bill each year. The fact that the number of hours in a day never changes does not seem to deter firms from increasing the number of those hours an associate is expected to spend billing. In 1958, the American Bar Association suggested a full-time attorney could bill 1,300 hours per year. No kidding. By the mid-'90s -- some 40 years later -- many firms thought 1,800 or 1,900 were reasonable targets. Now? Try 2,100, baby.
Many of you Big Firm Cogs complain and wonder how you can possibly bill more hours in a day when the length of a day remains a constant. You whine about not having time for silly things like walking your dogs or feeding your children.
I have a few simple solutions to this dilemma.
MOVE TO THE CITY
This one is a given. If you bought a house in the 'burbs so that you could afford a bigger lawn, more bedrooms and easy access to Barnes & Noble and Williams-Sonoma, you might want to do the math. The commute is the obvious part, of course, (about 1.5 hours a day, round-trip). But don't forget the valuable time you spend pruning your bushes, edging around your custom landscaping and mowing your 1.2-acre lawn -- about four hours per month -- and chasing your kids around the living room (about 1.5 hours per week). Sure, you can outsource such things to others (as many Big Firm attorneys do), but don't forget the time you spend playing golf at the club, walking up and down your three flights of stairs and sipping tea on your front porch.
You can bill at least an additional 200 hours a year by moving to a condo across from your office. Surely, there is one being built or available right now! This goes for you in-town homeowners as well. Forget about the yard and driving to work. You'll spend far less time on home maintenance when you trade your 4,500-square-foot suburban manse on one and a half acres for your lawnless, 1,200-square-foot loft in a trendy rehabbed warehouse. And the lack of walls (and floor space) is almost guaranteed to bring your family closer together (in the limited time you're not billing hours and are actually at home, that is).
Speaking of family, let's just be honest here: Children are a real time-suck. You've got to play with them; listen to them; ferry them back and forth to school, soccer and ballet; clean up their messes; and plan for their college educations. You'd save a lot of time -- maybe as much as 2,000 hours a year -- if you didn't have those kids. And that time could be spent billing. I know some of you may bristle at this advice, but if you take a moment (an unbillable moment, granted) to think about it, you'll see that I'm right. I'd also suggest getting rid of your spouse as another time-saving device, but so many of you appear already to have considered this option that I didn't want to be redundant.
For you young and single Cogs, don't waste time on homeownership or renting. Just find a vacant office at the Firm, place an "Under Construction" sign on the door and move in! You'll have all the amenities you need: a full kitchen, free coffee, bathrooms, fine art plus central air and heat! All for free! Why waste your time driving to some "home" where you only sleep? Just get a nice mattress and you're set!
STOP EATING
As a Big Firm attorney, you live a sedentary existence in front of your computer or at your desk. You just don't really need that many calories to fuel such minimal activity. A simple Campbell's drink-a-cup-of-soup will do for lunch. Chewing takes unnecessary time and doesn't burn enough calories to count as exercise. You can still read a noncompete agreement while sipping that tomato-basil goodness -- without sacrificing 1.1 billable hours consumed by heading out with your co-workers to eat a burger.
And with the calories you save by opting for a liquid lunch, you don't have to waste another 1.2 hours walking on a treadmill, lifting weights or kickboxing. Besides, your heart rate will be elevated every day for one billable reason or another: when the partner you are working with screams at you because the mailroom misplaced the box he shipped himself from the conference in Detroit or when you realize you accidentally e-mailed the draft partnership agreement to opposing counsel instead of to your client.
If you insist on actually exercising, you can squeeze it in by simply taking the stairs instead of the elevator or jumping in place during conference calls.
SHAVE YOUR HEAD
Seriously. With a once-a-month buzz of the old clippers, you can save at least 15 minutes each morning by not having to wash, blow-dry or apply styling product to your mop. That gives you an additional 91.25 hours of available billing time each year! As an added bonus, you will not have to take the time to drive to a barber and sit in the chair and chat with the locals about the latest movies every few weeks -- that's another 20 hours a year. (By the way, if you are still wasting valuable time watching movies, download some 20-minute podcasts to fill your entertainment cravings.)
Some of you ladies may not have the full shave as an option. Many Big Firms frown on such nontraditional looks in their female attorneys. You may have to opt for keeping your hair long to avoid frequent visits to the salon. Just slick it back and put it in a ponytail. Every day. Curling and straightening are out. Highlights are out. No way do you have time to waste for that hours-long process plus touching up your roots. And forget about any waxing, tanning, micro-dermabrasion or other such self-indulgent and time-consuming activities. That goes for the men too.
With these simple and timesaving solutions, nothing but your own laziness can stop you from billing 2,800 hours a year!
As long as firms continue to link raises and/or bonuses to increased billable-hour requirements, we are all going to have to think long and hard about how much sleep we really need to function and whether Depends diapers are really just for the incontinent. Bathroom breaks can really cut into billable time!

“ The above article has been reprinted from www.law.com and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”

Cobra Legal Solutions enters into Chennai

V HEMAMALINI

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ FRIDAY, JANUARY 05, 2007 12:20:39 PM ]

CHENNAI: If Clarvolex, Paneaga and Intellevate are the top MNCs that are in Noida to tap the legal process outsourcing (LPO) opportunity in India, then the entry of Cobra Legal Solutions (CLS) into Chennai, is expected to mark the rush of many legal firms, vying for a share of the $ 250 billion global LPO pie.

According to industry sources, the market is still in a nascent stage. But by December 2007, several legal majors are slated to enter Chennai, due to its knowledge process outsourcing base and the availability of an exceptional talent pool.

Of the estimated 2,000 people, serving the LPO business in India, there are about 100-120 Indian lawyers, who are well-versed in US laws, sources said, adding CLS is the first MNC in the LPO space to enter south. Initially, CLS would have a medium-sized operation, that would call for recruiting about 500 people. Other smaller players include Office Tiger and Comat.

November last, CLS advertised in a foreign media, for a CEO to head its Chennai operations. The description read "Legal offshoring operation looking for experienced lawyer and/or paralegal with four to six years 'big case' US litigation management experience to direct legal operations in Chennai, India. Two year minimum commitment in Chennai required."

CLS, principally-owned by senior partners in major US law firms, has retained Ma Foi Management Consultants, as recruiters. It is looking for legal specialists (litigation) and legal support professionals. Specialists need to have global client servicing experience and ability to use Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw and other resource databases. Graduates with strong English skills and computer proficiency fit the legal support profile.

Sources said a legal specialist, with two years experience, commands a salary of Rs 40,000-Rs 50,000 a month, while a lawyer to act as a support professional could command a monthly earning of Rs 10,000-Rs 15,000.

Chennai-based law office of Mohan Associates, primarily into patents and trade marks, is also mulling to enter the booming LPO space this calendar year. "It is not a legal input alone. Lawyers and computer operators have to necessarily put in joint efforts," Mr A A Mohan told ET.

Lawyers confined to Indian courts would not be suitable for the LPO work. "Expertise in corporate affairs and intellectual property is needed," he said, pointing to the three stages involved in the LPO business.

Stage one, being the prior art search procedure in respect of patents, which seems to have caught on. Stage two is one of drafting specifications and here too, the huge LPO opportunity is being tapped. "But in stage III, which would mean Indian lawyers answering examination reports by USPTO, we are still in a nascent stage," he noted.

An LPO job, which could fetch $350 an hour in the US, could be done for $50-$75 in India. South has 40% of the country's annual pass out of three lakh law graduates, he added.

“ The above article has been reprinted from http://infotech.indiatimes.com and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”

International Patchwork of Media Laws Can Be a Minefield for Online Publishing

International Patchwork of Media Laws Can Be a Minefield for Online Publishing
By Charles J. Glasser Jr. and James F. Haggerty
The National Law Journal
01-08-2007
As sports fans around the globe became transfixed last summer by the World Cup, a U.K. libel case featuring Ashley Cole, a top British footballer, captured the attention of many of the world's media lawyers. Cole reached a settlement in a libel suit against two British publications that never actually mentioned him by name: Cole's attorneys argued that readers could easily surmise his identity from Web sites that picked up the story and provided further detail.
Meanwhile, in late August, The New York Times finally came to grips with the conflicting patchwork of laws that allow Internet publication in one country, but may raise liability in others. In reporting about the arrest of Islamic terrorists in London, the Times added facts that, under the United Kingdom's Contempt of Court Act, are considered prejudicial to the fair-trial rights of the accused. In the face of violations of British law, the Times' solution was to prevent U.K.-based Internet addresses from accessing the story. The need for this work-around underscores the deepest philosophical infirmity in U.K. and E.U. law (and, indeed, the laws of most other jurisdictions worldwide): Free press is just not as valued as a foundation of democracy as it is here. While the U.S. First Amendment allows only narrowly tailored restrictions on such speech, in the United Kingdom the public's right to know is often first on the chopping block.
The practical application of this distinction is obvious: In the era when electronic communication can circle the globe instantly, every company that communicates globally can be liable under defamation and privacy law -- and just as liable in the United Kingdom, or in India, or China, as they are in the United States.
That's a daunting prospect for U.S. lawyers representing media companies that maintain Web sites with the potential to reach thousands of readers worldwide. Indeed, those who do business globally might find themselves subject to libel or privacy claims in diverse corners of the world for material on their Web sites, blogs and message boards, or for press materials distributed via e-mail, the Web or commercial newswires.
FAIRNESS AND OTHER FACTORS
What is a lawyer to do when advising as to Web site content and other electronic communications? What is a blogger to do when deciding whether or not to break a story? Lessons drawn from international newsgathering offer a useful guide to operating in the global media environment. Consider fairness, for example. Fairness not only means presenting both sides, but also giving your subject an adequate opportunity to respond. In 2003, The London Daily Telegraph was successfully sued in Britain for publishing an article alleging that a British member of Parliament was a paid agent of Saddam Hussein. Even though the reporter had telephoned the politician the evening before the story went to print, the court ruled that adequate opportunity for comment had not been given.
Also consider whether the story in question is serving the public interest. This is the single most consistent element that protects journalists and publishers around the world in libel cases. What is of interest to the public is not the same thing as what is in the public interest -- which may be news to many a celebrity gossip blogger.
And remember cultural distinctions: A simple word can make the difference between accurate reporting and slander. Seemingly inoffensive language in one country can be a very expensive mistake in another. For example to be "fired" in the United States is not in itself defamatory, but in France or Japan, this word could land you in court. If someone loses his or her job for economic reasons in Japan, where being fired is considered shameful, that person is reported as being "made redundant." Similarly, it's almost impossible to be fired in France, so when that word is used, it is assumed that the subject was in violation of duty.
Finally, in fairness to our global cousins in the United Kingdom, the rest of the European Union and other jurisdictions: There is some value to the higher standards of reporting required. Although it is sacrilegious to say it in the United States, the greatest fear of all media lawyers is to run across that one overworked or burnt-out reporter or editor who believes that because the "public figure" and "actual malice" standards are next to impossible to surmount, careful reporting and clear writing are optional. By requiring a higher degree of care and accuracy, clarity and fairness rise commensurately.
It is clear that the days when only the largest global media companies had to worry about international libel and privacy issues are long gone. Internet publishing makes understanding international libel laws every lawyer's problem. It is often said that there is a reason why our First Amendment is first: that the right to speak freely is the right from which all other freedoms flow. But while this may be a cornerstone of American libel and privacy law, U.S. lawyers cannot let it lull us into a false sense of security when representing clients whose Internet posts are read not just in their hometown, but on computers across the globe.
Charles J. Glasser Jr. is media counsel responsible for media law and newsroom ethics for Bloomberg's global television, book publishing, radio, wire service and desktop-delivery news operations. He is the author of "The International Libel and Privacy Handbook: A Global Reference for Journalists, Publishers, Webmasters, and Lawyers" (Bloomberg Press 2006). James F. Haggerty is an attorney, communications consultant and author of "In the Court of Public Opinion: Winning Your Case With Public Relations" (Wiley 2003).

Lawyers, Fun & Money

LAWYERS, FUN & MONEY
By SAIRA RAO

December 31, 2006 -- The city's largest, most prestigious law firms are suffering from serious brain drain.

Young, Gen-X lawyers in their third to fifth year in the business are walking away from their $200,000-a-year positions in record numbers - at times without another job in view.

The reason? They are unhappy with their Blackberry lifestyle - being tethered to the job 24/7 and having to rush back to the office at a moment's notice when e-mail orders pop up on the ubiquitous PDA.

The exodus of law firm associates is unprecedented, according to the National Association of Law Placement, or NALP, which found that 37 percent of associates leave large firms within the first three years.

A whopping 77 percent of associates leave within five years, according to NALP's latest survey.

That is up sharply from recent years, and the resulting brain drain is wrecking havoc on law firms.

"There's a significant drain on your potential as a firm if you can't mitigate it," Mike, a partner at a 400-plus lawyer Big Apple firm, said of the young legal eagle exodus.

Mike, like many lawyers interviewed for this story, spoke only if neither they or their firm were identified, fearing client losses.

While increased attrition is a typical effect of a relatively healthy economy, Mike claimed, "It'd be a mistake to say it's all driven by the economics."

The big-firm brain drain is also giving partners a major case of agita - forcing them to do the yeoman grunt work usually assigned to associates. In addition, the firms are being forced to scramble to fill the mid-level talent void. Some are even doing the previously unheard of - hiring from second-tier law schools.

John, a fifth year associate at a prominent Wall Street firm, is, like many young lawyers, walking out the door. He is leaving for a coveted in-house position at an investment bank. "I'm just waiting for my bonus," the 31-year-old says.

In fact, the next major wave of legal brain drain will occur over the next few weeks as young lawyers jump ship after collecting their bonus checks.

"It's the mid-levels, the third through fifth years that are leaving, so you're losing people you've spent lots of money on training, and just as they start to run things, they leave, and firms become less profitable," Mike, the partner, adds.


John, the associate ready to leave, notices the effect of the mid-level brain drain at his own firm. Gone, he said, is the traditional pyramid of power, from the numerous first-year associates up to select first-year partners.

"It's gone from a pyramid to a strange hourglass shape," John says. "It's bizarre. Now you'll see deal teams with a partner and a first-year associate, with nobody in the middle."


"You should see the partners," John says. "They're doing the work of mid-levels to pick up the slack. And even though they make over $1 million, they never see their family. There's little reward in that for me."

Tagg Grant, 31, couldn't agree more. The self-described "recovering lawyer" removed himself from firm life last year, as a third-year corporate associate. "I didn't want to sleep on my office floor anymore or wonder if I had a change of underwear somewhere in my file cabinet."

That these Gen-Xers are choosing quality of life over a paycheck doesn't surprise Janelle Wilson, a sociology professor at the University of Minnesota.

"Generation Xers don't measure success or happiness by traditional measures, namely occupational prestige, power and income," she notes. Eva Wisnik, a time-management expert, has been hired by some firms to help associates deal with the lack of free time.

For example, if the partner you are working for doesn't get in until 10, "then go to the gym first thing in the morning," she advises.

SAIRA RAO, a lawyer and writer, recently left a large city law firm. Her debut novel, "Chambermaid," will be published by Grove Press in July.

THIS BLOG POST TAKEN FROM THE NEW YORK POST.

Outsourced legal work offers advantages

ILLINOIS: Paralegals group appeals to Chicago firms to buck trend

BY MOUSHUMI ANAND
Medill News Service

This story ran on nwitimes.com on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 12:47 AM CST

Ruby Prasad's legal research and briefs regularly find their way into courts across the United States despite the fact she has never stepped foot in a U.S. courtroom or anywhere else in the country.

In fact, her workstation is located 8,000 miles away in India.

Prasad is among the 200 lawyers working for Chicago-based Mindcrest Inc., which has an outsourcing facility in Mumbai.

Her company, along with other legal outsourcing firms, is experiencing explosive growth. From just 20 lawyers two years ago, Mindcrest now is 10 times its original size.

According to George Hefferan, the company's vice president and general counsel, Mindcrest plans to add 200 more employees by the end of 2007.

Atlas Legal Research, another legal outsourcing company with offices in Bangalore, India, and Fort Worth, Texas, also grew tenfold in the last two years. The company employed three attorneys in India in 2004. Today, it has 30.

Legal outsourcing companies provide services to legal departments of corporations and law firms from their foreign facilities. The companies, based in India and elsewhere, conduct legal research, document review, due diligence reports on mergers and acquisitions, and administrative work, as well as draft legal documents.

"During my association with an Indian law firm at the start of my career, I realized that I was more interested in doing work relating to legal research and drafting than practicing law," said the 28-year-old Prasad.

India's legal and educational systems help make the country a preferred destination from which to outsource work.

"India has a common law system with similar torts and level of complexity, and that kind of training is sufficient for the work the legal associates do," said Paul Bernstein, president of the Chicago Bar Association's law office technology committee.

He added that the time difference between India and the Unites States -- 11 1/2 hours -- is another advantage for outsourcing jobs. As lawyers finish their work in the United States, a new work day begins for legal associates in India.

According to Bernstein, that enables the associates to get the research ready for attorneys in the United States before they return to work the next morning.

But the outsourcing sector has caused some concern for the Illinois Paralegal Association. The 1,500-member organization's board of directors distributed a letter to 300 Chicago area companies asking them to use paralegals rather than outsourcing.

The letter said work done by paralegals is quality controlled and cost efficient. The letter added that experienced paralegals perform high-level substantive work under direct supervision of an attorney at lower billing rates than attorneys.

But despite the worries, Bernstein said the trend is here to stay. And as for Prasad, she said it was a good career move.

"I visualizes a bright and promising future for those associated with legal process outsourcing services," she said.

“ The above article has been reprinted from www.nwitimes.com and LegalEase Solutions LLC does not hold any rights to the same”