Monday, March 09, 2009

Washington Post - "Recession Sends Lawyers Home"

"Unlike previous recessions, during which lawsuit filings increased, litigation this time is down sharply because the credit crunch is forcing corporations to curtail their legal spending, experts said.

Law firms spend as much as $40 billion a year on document review, experts said.

Over the past six months, the work more and more has been outsourced to lawyers in such faraway places as India. Since 2006, the number of lawyers working at offshore firms doubled to 2,000, said Ron Friedmann, senior vice president for marketing at Arlington-based outsourcing company Integreon.

Five years ago, the companies mainly digitized legal documents for law firms. Now corporate legal departments are hiring the companies to save on spending by their outside firms. And the companies' staff lawyers are being called upon to review the documents, work previously done by the firms' associates and paralegals.

'We have 300 people in India. We've added 50 people' in recent months, said Michael J. Dolan, chief executive of the Tusker Group in Austin. Dolan said his lawyers charge $25 an hour, compared with $150 to $300 an hour billed by paralegals and associates doing the same work at law firms. 'We're in the process of adding another 30 people.'"


Anonymous said...

Forgive or make student loan debt dischargeable in bankruptcy before there is mass suicide and/or riots in the streets.

Anonymous said...

The portion you choose to quote is a short term fix because we know that the case law hit client's attempts to be cheapskates.

The more interesting part for doc reviews and more substantive legal work is this:

"Last fall, he joined a start-up "virtual" law firm that he said is much better suited to the current economic conditions: It does business mainly over the phone and Internet and through video conferencing. Because the firm lacks two of the biggest cost drivers -- a prestigious brick-and-mortar office and associates -- he said he is offering his clients substantial savings compared with what they paid before.

"Everyone realizes the big law firm model is broken," said Willard, a partner in Silicon Valley-based Virtual Law Partners, who works out of his office -- adjacent to his kitchen and family room -- at his Reston home.

Although thousands of lawyers and staff members across the country have been let go during the past six months, Willard and Virtual Law's founder say that since June they have been adding three partners per month. "When you tell people, 'I'm going to drop my rates 25 percent,' it's a pretty easy decision" for them to hire you, Willard said."

If you do a little research, you will see that others are predicting that the changes we are seeing are structural, and that in the long term- the present megalaw firms (and those who are supported by them like doc reviewers) are going to be in trouble. The outsourcing will eventually die because of the regulation of legal work by the Courts. What will not change is the pressures to reshape what is an inefficient system created by Biglaw.

Anonymous said...

This will be all US lawyers soon......

Anonymous said...

OOOOOOOOOOOOO they're adding another 30 people, we're shaking in our boots.

Yet another delusional fly by night LPO sucker.

Anonymous said...

The Washington Post should change its name to Behind The Times. The LPO thing was always overblown and is on its way out. Most firms and clients never would touch them in the first place. The WP should stop quoting the LPO liars and accepting what they say at face value. They are just scammers.

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, Above the Law continues the dismal parade of associates being laid off in such a volumn that it means large law firms will not need contract attorneys (because they don't even have enough work for their associates).

Anonymous said...

gettin old


Anonymous said...

Yes!! Bring back the Anita stories!!!

Anonymous said...

well- nothing last forever. Even industries.

Anonymous said...


You are dead wrong, huckster. Businesses will soon realize that there is a need for highly paid doc reviewers. Big firms depend on the quality work that only ethical, US-trained JD's are capable of providing. There is nothing that you LPO frauds can do about it. Big businesses can't afford to stifle us much longer. The mere idea that these brown slumdogs can compete with the quality education that we paid big money for is a big joke in itself. You're on your way out, Babu. No more curry for you!

Anonymous said...

8:15 the "brown" remark makes me cringe and I'm white. The LPO sweatshops can't compete with us but this is not a matter of color. It is because we are U.S. admitted attorneys (whatever our color)and the firms cannot risk cutting corners with due diligence.

Anonymous said...


I was not referring to doc reviews. It's sad that you think that I was. Is that your only frame of reference for every thing?

Anonymous said...


I think you are right about US attorneys vs. LPOs. You're still a bigot though.

trollop said...

golden oldie?

Anonymous said...

How about the Huron Witch? Any update?

Anonymous said...

They used to say that the Japanese could never build autos rivaling those made by U.S. workers...

Anonymous said...

what NYC projects are currently going on?

Rates? Number of people on project? Duration?

Not asking to breach confidentiality, just litmus test as to what is going on. Sure would be helpful to all to get a state of the market report.

If we can't even accomplish this cohesiveness then how sad.

Anonymous said...

10:42- Yeah, I've been amazed and saddened by the racist comments on this blog. That's the problem- when a country falls into a bad situation, people don't put blame where they should (greedy CEOs and, oh, I don't know...GW BUSH!!!!), but on a much easier target- people of color, Indians and Nigerians in this case.

I assume that a lot of the racist posts have been from white males- this is NOT because I'm naturally assuming white males are racist, but because of the specific language in those posts. Ironically, it's other white men who've gotten us into this situation to begin with (major CEOs, judges, Madoff, Bush, etc.). So, why aren't they getting their share of verbal bullets?

I have stated this before in other posts- and I didn't receive any intelligent non-four-letter responses then. Hopefully, I'll get one now.

Anonymous said...

Yawn, leave George Bush out of your race baiting garbage. Crawl back under your slimy rock and die.

Anonymous said...


You are right. However, ometimes you got to judge whether it's worth your effort to discuss your points with people here. There are a percentage of racists and/or nutjobs that come to this blog. They are not going to stop posting their racism or dead end idealogy just because we use logic to demonstrate that they are wrong. If they were logical, they would not be writing half the crap they say here. My advice is to treat them like the crazy guy on the train- move on and don't engage them.

Anonymous said...

12:04- And Rush Limbaugh is back.

Anonymous said...


"My advice is to treat them like the crazy guy on the train- move on and don't engage them."

lol- you're so right. I guess I just can't comprehend that the people spewing this garbage are professional, educated people.

Anonymous said...

11:55 & 12:50 - please stop your race baiting and trolling. You are up to your same old tricks, posting an inflammatory message then responding to yourself.

You are just another LPO troll. We're on to you, go away.

Anonymous said...


A deep, intelligent response to
11:55's articulate comment. I don't believe that you actually went to law school, you troll. Even Shitlaw has standards.

Anonymous said...

10:01 - people who are working are keeping quit. There are projects are going on, mostly short term and hush hush.

Anonymous said...

12:59 and 12:04-

So which Deep South, Bible-thumping frat were you guys in?

I love how you completely avoided the rest of 11:55's argument and started spewing hate instead. Go join Eli's firm. You deserve it.

Anonymous said...


But how did THOSE people get projects? What were the 'staffers' looking for?

Anonymous said...

You have to just keep contacting the recruiters, over and over again. Make it so when the work comes in you will be first in line.

Or contact all of your friends, they'll let you know when they hear anything.

Keep digging, the work is coming back, slowly and it will only increase.

The whole LPO thing is just another bubble, based on greed that is popping every day.

Most importantl, stay positive.

Anonymous said...


Finally, a non-bitter breath of fresh air. You should come to this blog more often.

Anonymous said...

Oh plese--you know it's white men doing all the whining here because that's what they do: blame others when they fail (and then accuse others of being the "race-baiters"--it would really be funny if it weren't so pathetic). They all have the same script and lack the intelligence to deviate from it sufficiently to make a responsive argument--and yes, that includes the so-called "educated" ones as well.

Of course, the minute Indians and Nigerians get to this country, they love white men like a fat chick loves a 20-pk of bacon-wrapped McNuggets. They're just hurt when things go wrong and they find out what the low-class, poorly educated redneck/ethnics who make up most of the population here REALLY think of them.

Anonymous said...

1:39 your obvious race baiting and trolling is getting boring.

Would you mind taking it somewhere else? We would appreciate it.

Anonymous said...


Lol- true. Well, now I know what to say next time some white dude asks me out.

Anonymous said...

10:01 I don't know of any new English language document reviews that have started in the last four months. I'm in regular contact with a bunch of agencies and fellow reviewers and the work is just not there. They won't submit for paralegal jobs either because the firms don't want licensed, experienced attorneys doing para work.

Anonymous said...

I sincerely and deeply hope that "Jeff" over in Abu Dhabi fucks up some inane little email discovery and mis identifies it, and it utterly fucks a large corporate client to hell and back, and once they get cert denied by the Supreme Court, it comes out in the wash that Dewey Fuhkham and Howe Biglaw PA sent the discovery work to BFE they get the bejesus sued out of them for malpractice, and then carriers start dropping firms like big smelly turds after an all night taco bar binge as a malpractice risk.

Anonymous said...

Outsourcing to India...yeah right. Once a law firm gets sued as a result of outsourcing to India, that trend will end. Big firms don't want to risk liability of insider trading if an Indian contract attorney uses the confidential info to trade on our stock market or if processing patent applications, uses client info to make their own version of the widget before a US client has patent protection. Just plain dumb to put a firm at risk by outsourcing to India to save a few bucks for a client.

Anonymous said...

Hey peoples: There is some great independent documentary film making going on that documents the goings on in today's lawland. Click the following links which also can be seen on the following thread on JDUnderground:

Regarding the econonmy:

An scene at the BLS career office:

BLS Grad Pt. 1: Chance meet up with a friend:

BLS Grad Pt. 2: This one is insanely funny! Think Scotty Bullock in the career center...Law School Career Counseling:

BLS Grad Pt. 3: Guy named Tony Hofstra:

Bls Grad Pt: 4 No Sucki, Sucki for BLS grad:

BLS Grad: They bleed ya even after death:

BLS Grad: If you network, anything is possible:

BLS Grad: Streets and sanitation:

BLS Grad Finale:

BLS Admitted Students day:

A message from our friends in India (Very pertinent here on the temp blog):

Undergrads discussing lawschool:

And The Oscar For Best Lawland Documentary Goes To:
Me, in my non-porno graphic directorial debut:

Guerilla film making at its best!

Anonymous said...

A great series, they come highly recommended.

Here's another one for ya,

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Screw these temp agencies! We are Attorneys who can become independent contractors. We don’t need them!

Anonymous said...

nothing wrong with racism. It is just thought expressed.

of course those at the top wants racially and culturally integrated nations and cities because diversity weakens social capital and citizen unity, driving down wages.

And of course our educational system is in large part an ideological dissemination system. And what ideology gets disseminated? Why the ideology that favors those at the top of society.

And racial and cultural diversity and integration favors those at the top. Divide et impera, same as it ever was.

And because lawyers have gone through a lot of higher education, they have ingested a lot of elite propaganda, so therefore they are very eager as a group to attack speech that is not in conformity with elite-friendly ideology.


Anonymous said...

Screw the agencies. When times are good, they collect half your check for doing absolutely nothing. When times are tough, they can't even get you work. Screw them!

Anonymous said...

Hi Roach Boy, that's three useless posts in a row. Notice how everyone just ignores you now?

We all know you are just low rent troll, here to harass contract attorneys.

Bye bye troll!

Anonymous said...

What does troll mean? I take it is something bad.

Anonymous said...

Gallard is a troll. He lives underground.

Trollop said...

Why is the commenter a troll for saying we should market our services as an independent contractor for legal projects?

Has it come to this around here?

Maybe this individual will stop wallowing on this shitboard as he secures better compensation for his industry (services rendered under his licensure and admittance).

Anonymous said...


Like I said to the other poster, save your energy for getting your projects done. This is a place for people to come vent, and not resolve problems. You actually have a good idea, and I should act on it rather than trying to convince people here to act on it. In fact, the best thing that could happen is that they do not. That means less competition for you for whatever you do alone.

Anonymous said...

Wow, there's a troll patrol!

Anonymous said...

I have stopped paying my private loans. I learned today that the dean of my former esteemed law school, Richard Matasar, is the chairman of my private student loan company. Talk about conflict of interest galore. Let that snake come after me and ruin my credit.

Anonymous said...

It's just the LPO Troll who is trying to help foment a bad working environment between temps and bad relations between temps and agencies.

It's just so transparent, continue to beat the temps down, talk them down while proclaiming how the LPOs have none of these problems in far away offshore environments.

It's a devious strategy to create problems for the legal temp market in NYC, they see dollar signs by exporting our work.

So yes, it's a TROLL baby!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Re Paranoia

Yeap. That's about right.

Anonymous said...

I am the LPO Troll. I really resent all these negative comments about me. Can't a guy kick back in his yacht, docked at the marina at the Monte Carlo Grand Hotel, and sip some Chateauneuf du Pape '74, and eat some foie gras in peace, while talking to his slave -- I mean, coder -- supervisor in Mumbai, on the uplink to his private satellite, in PEACE, without being yacked online at by a bunch of pathetic Triple-T peons?

I mean, reeaaaallly!!

Anonymous said...

Triple-T peons=pwned

Anonymous said...

When your handler tells you, "...If the project ends, you’re at the top of our list." hold your breath, ok!

Anonymous said...

What's the deal with Robert Half Legal?

Anonymous said...

The deal with Robert Half Legal is it's a phony, incompetent agency which never has any real jobs.
Avoid it like the plague.

Anonymous said...

Robert Half is okay. They offer some decent jobs now and again. I would not rule them out, they have good clients.

Anonymous said...

The latest from the LPO Huckers and my response...

"Is Offshoring Document Review a Duty When It's the Cheapest Option?

When offshoring document review is the cheapest option, are law firms ethically obligated to outsource the work, or at the very least inform clients of its existence? That's the question Mark Ross ponders in this column at Immigration Daily. Ross describes a conference he attended where a representative from global law firm Baker & McKenzie shared her firm's experiences using offshore document review. She concluded that "across four metrics, namely, quality, learning curve, productivity and cost, offshore LPO scored extremely favorably on cost, was comparable in terms of productivity and quality, and with a marginally slower learning curve."

Given that offshore document review is cheap and comparable in terms of productivity, Ross asks whether lawyers violate the ethical obligation to charge "reasonable fees" if they don't inform clients of cheaper alternatives. After all, if a cheaper and equally credible option is available, isn't it unreasonable or excessive under ethics rules to charge more?

Andrew Perlman at the Legal Ethics Forum doesn't think so, suggesting that imposing an obligation to always choose the lowest-cost option can interfere with firms' business management decisions. For example, Perlman notes that firms routinely put expensive first-year associates on document review that could be performed at a cheaper rate by a paralegal, presumably to give the associate training. But firms are not obligated to disclose this practice to clients. Perlman also notes:

I'm more confident with my answer if the cheaper option takes business away from the firm. Imagine, for example, that a large firm lawyer thinks that a particular legal matter could be handled much more cheaply at an entirely different and highly qualified firm. Does a lawyer have an ethical obligation to tell the client about that alternative? I doubt it. If the client thinks the lawyer's rates are too high, the client can shop around. Imposing a duty on a lawyer in this situation to tell the client about a cheaper firm sounds to me like the Macy's Santa Claus sending customers to Gimbels.

David Giacalone in turn disagreed with Perlman in a comment to the post. Giacalone points out that lawyers owe a fiduciary duty to clients, which at a minimum encompasses advising them on low-cost alternatives.

I agree with Giacalone. Not only is disclosure of the cheaper cost option -- at least in the offshoring example -- ethically required, it makes good business sense. By informing clients of offshore options, lawyers also have a chance to discuss potential risks in offshoring and the possible unsuitability of offshoring for a given project. But because few firms discuss offshoring options with their clients, clients have pressed the issue themselves. These days, many clients are demanding that firms offshore their document review.

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on March 10, 2009 at 02:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)"

An American JD said...

Well Mark Ross is being duplicitous here. What you failed to mention is that he works for one of the biggest Outsourcing firms.

His blog is here:

So by this bizare logic why not export all of the firms associate and partner level work? It's awfully expensive! Why not do ALL of your work overseas?

Law has never been offered primarily on the lowest cost basis. Legal services are offered as quality services to our clients. An attorney is no under no obligation whatsoever to provide lower cost competition for their services. This is would be suicide.

Further, for Mr. Ross to assert this absurd notion, underscores his fundamental ignorance of the American Legal System and practice of law.

What Mark Ross and the other Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) companies don't tell you is that they are filling these companies with unlicensed, non-native English speaking "attorneys" that are trained in a foreign legal system. Why on earth would you send American legal work to such a place? The only answer is greed. Everyone knows the work product is inferior in these third world sweatshops.

This work is normally performed in America by expert attorneys and contract attorneys, some with 5 to 10 years of experience. All of them have American JD degrees and licensed to practice law. The reviewers in the foreign companies are not licensed, American attorneys. It is therefore the unauthorized practice of law to export American attorney work to unlicensed, non-JD foreigners.

To boot, many of the document reviewers in large American law firms are African American and other minorities. Firms that export jobs, disproportionately affect the minority communities. Thus the reasons are many for not exporting American jobs to India.

This kind of greed is what got us into our current financial crisis. Do we want to gut our profession and export our jobs to India? Is law now just a low cost profession, where anyone can perform our services anywhere in the world for a fraction of the cost? What about our hard working, middle class American attorneys? Why stop at document review, how about associate and partner work, it's cheaper in India! Of course Mr. Ross offers only the same tired greed that got us into our current financial crisis.

It is not just greedy, it's foolhardy. It is the unauthorized practice of law for non-attorneys to perform this work. Recent rulings have indicated that actual JD holding, licensed attorneys must review every document for privilege.

Don't fall prey to greed and the LPO hucksters! They are using flawed logic in an attempt to destroy our profession and export our jobs. It is just a race to the gutter, an attempt to commoditize our work. Don't do it.

Any attorney the recommends the use of such offshore centers is encouraging the unauthorized practice of law and could be liable for sanctions.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Good lord. The sleazbag Outsources are out spamming again. Does anyone really believe the quality of outsourced Indian work is higher than that of dogshit? Consider this "Testimonial" froma crack Indian LPO "lawyEmployee Testimonial:

"I have dramatically grown my Legal Knowledge and sharpen my legal skills in association with PLM. There training sessions has made me to attain expertise in my interested domain"

- Ishan Sharma, Legal Associate

So he "have" "Sharpen" his skills and the sessions "has" "Made me to attain expertise". And no one thinks we have a language issue here?

Anonymous said...

English is not their native language, it's pretty obvious.

Mark Ross is not even an American trained attorney, he's from the UK! What business does this charlatan have outsourcing American legal services?


Anonymous said...

This is terrific. We need to expose these frauds. Seriously, what client in his or her right mind would choose a lawyer who cannot speak basic, grammatically correct English? No one who speaks or write like that would get hired by Biglaw or Medlaw or even Smalllaw. So why would you send work there?

Anonymous said...

I have worked with some "highly trained attorneys" in doc review who I would not trust to deliver my drycleaning. Lunatics. I have worked with some who advocated "blind coding" to either "get the man" or meet production expectations. I have worked with MANY that drink or drug before, during and after their work-day. In fairness, many are good hard workers and it may well be the unprofessional agencies treating coders like kids that sparks this type of behavior, but let's not oversell the general US coder workforce.... Also, at 35-40/hr, coders are not that uncompetitive. blame agencies and firms for jacking the end-rate to clients into the hundreds and making good folks appear exorbitantly costly.

Anonymous said...

@1:29: Do firms have an ethical obligation not to "jack[] the end-rate to clients into the hundreds and making good folks appear exorbitantly costly." What if the same, or only slight higher, end-rate to client as obtained by outsourcing could be obtained by lowering the profit margin on use of U.S.-licensed attorneys?

Anonymous said...

1. don't know 2. how low could they go in NYC? I think the agency take is currently 40-50% of say 80 or 90/hr.

Anonymous said...

There is no comparison. Anyone that outsources runs the risk of a lawsuit for violating the Federal Rules.

Not to mention the whole unauthorized practice of law thing. The only reason that outsourcing is ever used is greed, plain and simple.

The same greed that has destroyed out economy is driving professional work overeas.

It is poorly conceived and unconscionable.

Anonymous said...

More on the latest from the LPO frauds,

Anonymous said...

Here's new twist, Sorry Babu!

This is an interesting question. In August 2008 the ABA issued a formal opinion on a related ethics issue; it had to do with disclosure of outsourced services using non-lawyers, which is becoming a common practice.

My firm is offering a unique model: our lawyers are all bar admitted U.S. citizens who have relocated to Israel, where our service delivery center is. Because we're offering American lawyers to handle the work, we do not fall under the level of scrutiny of the ABA's opinion. However, we are definitely seeing interest in our model because of the lower perceived risk of using qualified lawyers to handle the outsourced assignments.

With the growth of LPO, it's good to see these issues being sorted through openly. What matters is that law firms are able to make the most informed decisions possible.

March 10, 2009 11:55 AM

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

1:29 makes a very good point. There are reasons why people choose (or are unable to do more than) doc review. And to make the blanket statement that "US workers are the best in the world" whether about steelworkers or doc reviewers is jingoistic bullshit.
I have worked with reviewers who went to good law schools, summered or started at firms like MoFo, and for various reasons left traditional practice. Others are phasing into retirement, went to TTT schools and are unable to find anything else, or have other priorities in life that make the doc review hours and work more amenable.
At my current project the other reviewers wanted to agree to work at a certain pace so no one could be fired and all would be considered for OT.
With the current economy and shift in law firm economics those who are unwilling to hustle or are less competent (at law or at self-marketing) will be forced out. I believe this is a good thing.

Anonymous said...

1:29 is exaggerating wildly. Most people are pretty diligent. There are a few Nigerian scammer types who want to freeload, but they are quickly weeded out.

Further, I've only worked once with someone that came to work drunk or stoned, a girl who was an alcoholic and got fired for it. It's no different than any other line of work.

The truth is, that temps are held to higher standards than the perm employees, rigid hours, minimum click rates etc. This can be highly stressful.

Give your fellow coders a break and stop selling them out.

Anonymous said...


You are an example of why I need to get as far away from doc reviewers as possible.

Doc reviews are not about hustling or selling oneself in any meaningful sense that matters. Nor is the present economic situation a product of 'ability." It's like you have all the corporate-way of speaking down, but a derivative of their already hollow meaning. I suppose you believe that the associates fired by the large law firms are being fired due to performance?

Your arguments would at least be valid if these were real jobs with a chance for upward growth, but they are not. Thus, this makes your argument worse.

Other industries employ temps/contract workers, and many of these temps have various aspirations. Some seek other careers, some seek other things other than the jobs they are doing.

None of which says anything about how the temporary job for them can also lead into opportunities. These chances for mobility are not present here. That's why your comments are just - bizare.

These are temporary jobs that are not meant to produce a career. Yes, I know people depend on them for livelihood, but that does not change what they are.

Anonymous said...

5:03 and 1:29.
You people miss the point. I don't see anyone saying American contract attorneys are perfect and inherently better than all other document reviewers. The point is that the LPO hucksters try to sell their product with lies about how great these Indian JDs (they aren't lawyers here)are with their English language knowledge. Look at the website that was posted for that LPO. The English usage on that site, held out professionally to the public horrible. Do you really think someone who's use of English is as poor as that can be both efficien and competent AND save costs at drafting contracts, briefs, doing research and reviewing docs for us in the USA? No frigging way. Someone who turned in work like that at a US lawfirm would be shown the door quite quickly.

Anonymous said...


You're either lying or about to get fired. Trying some kind of stunt like having everybody work at the same rate will get you and everybody else who is doing fired before you know what happened. That is unless it's Japanese and they can't find any replacements.

Anonymous said...

In addition, many of us are top students who graduated from the top law programs in this country. We are U.S.-admitted attorneys, it is that simple. That alone disqualifies the argument that these Indians from Third World "JD"-programs are able to produce work that can come close to matching the quality that we produce. LPO's are a sinking ship. How much longer are we gonna let people, whether they be biglaw partners, slimy agencies or hucksters spit on our academic achievements? Somebody tell me this is a bad joke!

Anonymous said...

JPMorganChase has just announced it's increasing its outsourcing to India by 25%. The bank is one of the prime recipients of taxpayer funding. Thanks so much for moving much-need U.S. jobs to that third-world cesspool, India!

Anonymous said...

5:54 nailed it. The emphasis should be on the inappropriate nature of the use of the foreign "attorneys". We don't need to sell each out in the USA. We're in this together.

I think we need to get reports from these Mumbia Sweatshops and find out the exact extent of this rampant unauthorized practice of law. Let's expose these hucksters for what they are.

Anonymous said...

The time to wake up is right now. Do not take it as fait accompli that outsourcing doc review cannot be stopped. These are not call center operations. The American legal profession has standards to ensure the integrity of the profession and competence of its practitioners. There are good reasons why a JD from an American school and and law license is required to practice law. One really good one is that many foreign countries, like India, have serious problems with their legal professions. Do a little research.

The ABA and the banks and corporations, if they could, would push America back to the society that existed prior to the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt and there were few regulations on corporations and banks. The corporations will get away with whatever they can until they are stopped. They are trying to slip oytsourcing in under the nose of the courts and hoping they don't get caught. Obviously the times are changing and now is the time to act.

Contact the journalist who wrote that piece in the WP, your members of congress, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, the media and anyone else that will listen to get it into the zeitgeist that the legal profession is being outsourced and it must be stopped. What's next? Why not outsource Congress or the courts? Unfortunately the investment banking sector did not outsource itself so now the whole world is fucked.

This is a fight for your livelihoods so you better start acting like lawyers, unless you want sell furniture to pay off your 100K in student loan debt. Don't take this lying down, because there is nothing left to lose.

Anonymous said...

Can we possibly organize some sort of formal protest of the firms that off shore and their clients. This will take guts and time but I think it would work. This whole country is going down the tubes unless we keep jobs here. Obama will not save us!!! We have to do for ourselves. I would like to start a meet up group next week. If you are in favor send an email saying yea. If not don't send anything but it will take some radical protest.

Anonymous said...

8:44-I'm interested in a meetup for this purpose. What'd you wanna call it, so I can find it?

Best Savings Account Rates said...

Is this true? As I have noticed that the foreclosure & mortgage cases have increased and in these cases we need lawyers. So how come recession sends Lawyers Home?
I am not getting it even after reading the post.

hotel in bandung said...

I like this blog, good luck ..! also visit hotel in bandung or nikon digital camera cases