Above the Law almost imploded today with a stream of steady negative layoff news. As of noon, Dechert, Bryan Cave, Goodwin Procter have all axed dozens of associates. Apparently, more layoff news is on the way.
I am sorry to say that anyone who is expecting an uptick in the temporary document review market this year is going to be sorely disappointed. Not only do we have to compete with dozens of highly qualified out of work former associates, but the floodgates opened by the ABA Indian legal outsourcing opinion will continue to suck out of the country any last remaining remnants of legal scrap work.
621 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 621 Newer› Newest»404
Yes I have. And if those library only published at the time generic reports such as the US News Report on grad schools, etc? What happens to the ability of the person to discern the legal environment?
The truth is- again we keep forgetting this- the information revolution only happened 10 years ago. of that time, the revolution for lawyers has only been the last 5.
The heightened ability to scrutinize accuracy happened with the democratization of information in general.
It's like o ur ability, for example, to go around the mainstream media so that we can determine whether they are reporting accurately to us or not. This only happened in the last half a decade. It's why the GOP finds its smear campaigns less effective. In the past the top down media concentration of the pre internet era allowed for easy message control. Now this decentralized process doesnot.
There was no library that you could go to fact check and/or verify accuracy. The internet revolution allows now for people to do what was not doable before- that is to congregate as we do here without relying on information provided by institutional intermediaries.
Again, were lawyers not technophobe, this should not be in dispute. It's something that is out there that can be researched and known regarding how information access has shifted in the last decade.
4:09 you got that right!
412
Part of the problem is that you aren't engaged in intelligent conversation. For that, there would have to be some empiracle analysis involved in what you say. There isn't. So i don't take you seriously. Admitting I am wrong is not a problem. Being bullied into saying I am wrong by someone who can't prove his claim , however, is a problem. Again, try harder.
4:14 there is no media reporting and nothing in any library that will tell you as much as actually experiencing something. You sound like you've spent a little too much time online.
4:16 you don't need empirical analysis when you actually live through something.
425
Please- you are not convincing me. Your personal experience does not equal what the environment is like. Saying you don't need empirical evidence only reinforces my point that you have nothing to back up what you are saying.
420
Yes- of course- that's a convenient argument that requires you to not prove a word of the shit you make up. You can just claim "it's my experience." You can also act like "you've been online too long" although you have nothing to back up your claims. Basically a cop out which considering the subject matter- does not make much logical sense. remember the discussion was pre-Internet world. Thanks for sharing.
Anyway, this has been cute, but I am done working now and need to get lunch.
4:55 sounds like you've been out to lunch for a while. After you come back, maybe you can use the internet to find out where you went, what you had and how it was.
504
blah blah blah. blah blah blah. Now, respond with more of your nutty b.s. that you can't prove. Why wouldn't anyone believe a random guy like yourself making shit up over both our own experience and the empirical data that is contra to your claims? so like I said, do as much blah, blah blah as you want. You are still a fruitcake.
5:34 your nutty comments speak for themselves. They are empirical evidence that you are a childish fool.
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2009/02/legal-process-outsourcing-summit.html
Guess who's coming to NYC 02/23 - 02/24/09?
It's the LPO Conference!
http://www.americanconference.com/
LPO.htm
More details on the conference home page.
This is why we, the LPOs, fight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7886089.stm
We are fighting to uplift the living standards in our country, India. With your help, little girls like Pinki, can lead a better life.
Everyone is a victim! Where is our f*** you guy to "keep it real"??
9:45
My country, my credit score, my income, my roof over the head and my dog's health > Pinki.
Right, you cannot raise your living standards without stealing our work?
Then you really have no ecomomy and will be poor forever. Maybe you should stop having so many children.
Every nation is guilty of stealing something from others in order to keep its economy going or building it up. or exploiting another person with the result of enriching itself. We are shocked when it happens to us. We put ourselves in this position, others are born into it. The problem is that we are a fat nation and it is easy to keep us in control with a little money...money is more important than ideals until our own pocket is affected. Outsourcing has been going on for a VERY long time. NOW YOU CARE? Frieking brush yourself off, and do something. Protest. Find another job. Organize. Lobby. No one is listening to you on this blog. Get on a train and go down to DC. DO SOMETHING!!!
I WILL do something. I will go to the Indian Buffet downtown and order the chicken tikka masala. Then maybe some naan bread and a little spicy curry dish.
Delish!
That sounds quite good. Meet you there.
11:15 - Apparently you are listening and it's bothering you. So yes, we're having an impact and we will crush the LPO industry by continuing to expose the greed and fraud behind this industry.
So we're doing a lot. Don't you agree?
I bet the biggest whiners on this blog are also the fattest.
You think I'm an LPO? I'm a frieking housewife you idiot.
I bet 11:22 weighs about 240
11:24
I don't think so Indian LPO troll. No American would spell freaking as "frieking."
Stop writing in Hindi.
The LPO frauds seem to think they have to do a public relations campaign here, so we should make sure that their garbage doesn't go unanswered and to keep on pointing out that, if they think they have to do that on this blog, they have to be scared that biglaw will not stay with them. The risk of sanctions for lack of due diligence, losing clients over screw-ups and malpractice claims is way too great.
The LPO liars are so lame that they think anyone would actually believe that a housewife would be on a blog for doc reviewers. They also spell "freaking" as "frieking". Even their fake posts are shoddy.
Yes, their desperation is really showing. Who wants to protest outside the LPO Conference next week?
LPO Guy is right, we should do something.
No way. Why would they want to do anything? That would mean getting off their corn-fed asses and actually putting words into action. The LPO's are quite safe.
"corn fed asses"...wow you really are an American hating racist, aren't you, LPO Guy?
The LPO Revolution cannot be stopped by a few protesters outside our conference. We are fighting for justice, to advance living standards, to provide decent-paying jobs, and to uplift everyone in this global economy, not just a few! LPOs will continue to fight for what is right!
February 23-24th-- Helmsely Park I believe-- anyone interested in drawing some attention to this issue?
36 Central Park South. We need a slogan that is humorous and memorable...we need more than 5 people.
12:00
How do you get the public to sympathize with a bunch of lawyers? By saying that Indians are taking their jobs away? I'm sure the public will be devastated.
your right. no one will care. Thank you for reminding us!!! NOW WE CAN CONTINUE WITH OUR POINTLESS RELENTLESS WHINING. Is anyone working?
Right, fighting for the loss of American jobs, chiefly among under represented minorities (e.g. African Americans) and others who have played by the rules and earned JD degrees and state bar membership.
You are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, plain and simple. You are frauds and charlatans, LPO Guy.
"Hey Hey, Ho Ho, LPOs have got to go"
"Hey Hey, Ho Ho...."
Just curious if there ARE more than 5 people willing to get out there?
The slogan has to be something like, "Would you trust YOUR court case to an unqualified foreign attorney?" But it has to be shorter and punchier than that.
And no using racist shorthand symbols like "Apu", "Babu", etc. That will attract the wrong kind of attention.
I'm sure there are many umeployed former doc reviewers, that would happily stand out front.
We would need signs, press releases and some organization, but not much.
We need an organization name and web site, too.
Outsourcing
Steals
Work from
American
Lawyers
Daily
Now we are talking!!! Anyone willing to set something up? I think blogspot could be a great place. It has to be done rapidly. I agree that we keep racism out of it. I think focusing on how unpatriotic it is would be great...that seems to catch people's attention and raise their ire. Also it helps to tie it back to ANY outsourcing of jobs that might be performed by American workers.
You people forget that we Europeans despise your American supremacist attitudes as well. Why don't you come over to France and see for yourself what we think of your fat asses? I am looking forward to training Indian doc reviewers with pleasure to make them competitive for your jobs and eventually take them. This blog should focus on the next generation because current American doc reviewers have no stake in shaping the future in any way. They can only rant and troll and then one day they die.
American supremacy is a thing of the past and most recently, your phony prosperity was largely based on excessive credit spending anyway. America's youth has been dumbed down by MTV, junk food and cable news pundits to the point that they cannot compete against the youth of other nations, including India and China.
Fight TTTrolls with TTTrolling!
Bursting with Fear!
Fight TTTrolls with TTTrolling!
Ending is Near!
"Outsourcing steals jobs"
12:29, that is nice and simple. Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step out of the darkness and declare yourself the official organizer? I am considering it myself. I am so conflicted because of family obligations... anyone else here have the energy and desire to lead?
There have been comments about how black attorneys have a particular interest in fighting the outsourcing because of the high per cent of black attorneys who are on the doc review projects here (when they are here). Would the black bar associations be willing to use their connections to fight against outsourcing legal work or are they just as unhelpful as the other bar associations?
Can we hook up with other groups fighting outsourcing while still making sure that we don't get sold out in the end?
Is there any way that the black bar associations would be willing to pressure the state bars and the ABA to switch stands on outsourcing?
List of American companies guilty of outsourcing:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html
websit that might be of interest:
www.noslaves.com
http://oswaldnow.blogspot.com/
Outsourcing steals jobs!
Check out the service unions. They would be a natural fit for what you want to do if you are serious. Also, talk to the public lawyers unions. Specifically go to the head of the unions that represent the public defenders. They are, again, a good source of information and direction. Those two in combo can help you. If you really want to lead this ask them to collaborate with you. There was also a listening over a year ago about a labor union lawyer in DC seeking to organize, but nothing came of it. To be honest, I don't expect anything to come of your post either. The principle issues are fear and shame. None of us want to be associated with what we do for a living, and none of us want to be blacklisted from making money either.
Most of us already out of work. They're doing the work offshore. Are we that docile and defeated? Is there nothing left worth fighting for?
157
I am simply stating the reality. We couldn't get people to act in the "good times," and I do not see what's changed now that it's the bad times. Shame and fear are still issues. Who among you talk to friends or other attorneys about what you do for a living? Who is not afraid of the consequences of the financial fallout if you are blacklisted? Has that changed?
Are we going to wait until we are homeless to do something?
Who cares? We're already blacklisted, there's no more work?
Blacklisting, are you serious? There needs to actually be a job to be blacklisted from.
"When you've got nothin', you've got nothin' to lose."
Blacklisting, ROFL, what are you so afraid of? The agencies are losing the work, too. They would probably applaud our efforts.
1:46 started a dedicated blog. Anyone willing to come out of the dark? to no longer remain anonymous and lead this?
Need something to fight for? Here is something to fight for!!!
If we wait too long, we'll be fighting in the streets, because that's where we'll be.
It takes just one person...a name to a face.
I have a question. What are your personal reasons for not putting your name out there and for leading this? Maybe if we know people's real reasons for not doing it, it will inspire someone who is on the fence to do it.
We don't need to out anyone. Just need to rally together online to create a group that represents us.
We need to fight the exporting of jobs, counter the shallow fraudulent claims of these LPO salesmen and promote our own ability to make a living. A protest outside of the LPO Conference would be great, but not essential. It is asking a lot to take that public step. But there is a lot we can and will do online, to get the word out.
Becoming more public about it is a more individual decision. We should not be afraid of being blacklisted, as our jobs are being exported before our eyes.
Once the agencies start shutting down, they won't have the chance to blacklist any of us anyway.
OSWALD sounds like an incredibly unfortuate choice of names since Lee Harvey Oswald is the only famous Oswald. Of all the possible names, there is no need to use that one.
if it is asking a lot then it is not that important. families of 9/11 victims were IN D.C. to get security legislation in place. They were amateur lobbyists and they knew that.
It is NOT as important to me because I am busy trying to keep food on the table and a roof over my kids heads. I've moved on, but I still care about my fellow doc reviewers. I will do whatever it takes as long as it does not interfere with my ability to survive.
Oswald also doesn't spell out anything relevant. It's just a poor choice.
Like I said- fear and shame. It's really very simple. I wish I were wrong. But, this is the reality.
Come up with something better...
exactly! come up with something better.
Googling Oswald brings up a whole lot of Lee Harvey Oswald related links. Let's ditch this name. Using it is not exactly an example of public relations smarts.
CLOO? Contract Law Opposing Outsourcing?
Meant Contract Lawyers Opposing Outsourcing - CLOO
possible names
CLU (Contract Lawyers Union)
ALU (American Lawyers Union)
LAAP (Law AS A PROFESSION)
LPU (Legal Profession's Union)
You want to describe what you are doing with out a) dwelling on one issue or b) creating a negative impression. Don't get cute. Keep it simple. Define a positive rather than negative goal. ie, LAAP describes a positive goal outcome. You want the law to return to being a profession. Etc.
Also possibly CLOSE [Contact Law Outsourcing Stops Employment]but CLOSE is already used by the Coalition to Leverage and Optimize Sales Effectiveness.
I kind of like LAAP.I think we are more interested in fighting outsourcing right now than in starting a union. Some of the agencies would probably not mind seeing us fight outsourcing. Also there is probably more of a consensus on the need to fight outsourcing.
LAAP is the one of the better choices that I thought may reflect what is at bottom the issue. The issue is the systematic assault on the idea that being a lawyer is a professional service. This systemic assault is resulting in a race to the bottom in which the whole idea of there being a professional at law is being replaced with the idea that we are fungible assets like any other in the globe- that legal services are the same as building a car. That there is no reason why one would want to have counsel versed in the local custom of the industry, in the local language, etc. That you would want a generation of heavily indebted lawyers who are not viewed as professionals. Maybe that's what people want. But that argument should be made clear.
Exactly 3:53.
Okay, I put together a poll here,
http://oswaldnow.blogspot.com/
Feel free to vote for one the four choices, or even suggest another here.
I voted.
LAAP is in the lead!
Yes, it's..."lapping" the competition...
CLOO was my suggestion, but I voted for LAAP. I really think it is a much better name.
One other piece of advice other than name (LAAP), I would make it about all attorneys not playing with the big boys. I would including definitely that plight of contract attorneys, but also include solo practice attorneys, and others affected by how the profession is becoming less of a profession. The point is to create allies if the goal is to push back against those forces making it less of one. Namely, both contract attorneys and small firms are affected by the glut of lawyers on the market by law school proliferation, etc. Try to find points of common interest, promote and organize along those lines like nobody's business and give people something positive to believe in. Whatever negative issue you find- always find a positive spin for it (a positive outcome).
We need to show others what's in it for them to be our allies without allowing our top priority - stopping outsourcing - to be diluted.
if you make it about the profession, you solve the issue of outsourcing.
That's what makes LAAP the best choice for a name. Keeping Law As A Profession really is the issue. If foreign non-attorneys in LPO sweatshops are allowed to do U.S.legal work, it is no longer a profession.
Vote at http://oswaldnow.blogspot.com/
LAAP it is!
Will anyone be sympathetic?
The ABA is the culprit, and the only entity that can do anything about it. Unfortunately, they have been bought and sold.
I am too chicken to help out, but here's some more advice:
a) Yes, others will help out if you go to the right organization. Start with the non-big boy bar associations- New York County Lawyers Association, brooklyn bar, minority bar associations, etc. Ignore New York Bar Association.
b) Again target talking to service unions- the public defenders have a union, the SIEU, find a small hungry labor side law firm, etc.
c) find press related allies- do a google of people who have addressed the issues of the legal profession less from a propaganda side, and more from conditions.
d) brainstorm about natural allies more so than I suggested so far. ie, find orgs that are going to be in alliance with your concerns- ie, export of jobs, quality of the legal profession (again smaller bar associations working with a lot more solo ). After you create that list- figure out what you have to offer to them. After you do that, find a contact person- it does not need to be the person in charge- just someone with a pulse and ear of the organization. talk to them. build the relationships.
e) reach out for members. create services for members. Cheap CLE. Resource databank for referrals etc. Things to help people build a practice or other things that will assist them in a real job hunt. Plus also help them negotiate with conditions, etc.
f) Incorporate. Solicit funding.
Those are just some suggestions. Like I said, I won't help with this. But there's the advice just the same.
You ought to contact Hennessey(google him) in D.C. Also look up the Acumen case.
He might give you some ideas.
The catch is to wait until they screw a litigation up and start a class action. I suspect there might be one if you could contact the owners of the patents that Pangea3 screwed up. They didn't get the filing licenceses.
One other point to consider with outsorcing.
The non-licensed foreign "attorneys" at the LPOs over there don't have malpractice.
I think the agencies cover malpractice for the temps. This is one of the reasons the agency model works better than direct hire and isn't going away anytime soon.
Malpractice insurance cost is kind of b.s. I am not saying you aren't right regarding this being their selling point. But, the actual cost of malpractice insurance per head is fairly low. Basically you can make up that cost in a single day to the client for the cost of an entire year of doc review. Again- I am referring to per head cost.
7:36 - Once again you are grasping at straws and making nonsensical arguments.
Anyone can sue these attorneys for malpractice via their US entities and the law firms affiliated with this debacle.
Are you really that delusional and think you can skirt malpractice in your LPO sweatshops? How did you ever get any business with these slipshod arguments?
No wonder the LPOs are known for shoddy work! You can barely form a sentence in English, never mind a legal argument.
Yeah but it's probably easier to have an agency screw with it. They're kind of set up to deal with it.
It's not BS that the unlicensed attorneys (the guys in India) don't have it. You have to be an attorney to have malpractice, right?
But the attorneys supervising this disaster will be on the hook. Not to mention the agencies and other atotrneys involved.
Joining or forming a union will be one of the worst things we can do, and it will be sure to drive even more contract work over to India. Contract attorneys are NOT permanent workers and therefore do not fall under many of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act that apply to unions. Forming a union is sure to scare the agencies away en masse from the US, and for good.
I'm very pro-union, but let's be real -- we're not permanent employees our field is non-unionized, and trying to unionize it will REALLY wreck things for us.
Now, if we want to quietly hire a good NYC or DC labor + employment plaintiffs' firm to push the UPL angle, I'm all for that. That's the smart way to go.
We don't have to form a union to start a professional organization or coalition to fight outsourcing.
I though we were no longer talking about a Union? I thought we were discussing taking action, i.e. standing outside the LPO conference on Feb 24th, or having an organized on-line protest of sorts?
We should make it very clear that LAAP (which seems likely to be the winning name) is not a union. Agencies would be far more upset with us if we formed a union than if we fought outsourcing. Also, more of us agree on fighting outsourcing than on trying to form a union.
Does anyone know of any good websites for solo practice beyond myshingle or solosez?
7:53
I agree. I also don't think it will take too long.
That's why I'm not too worried about the LPO stuff. It's one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in a long time.
You relly wonder what the hell some of these partners at law firms or in-house at corporations are thinking. Common sense should tell them it's a relly bad idea.
If there was any way on this planet that the ABA and the state bars could be pressured into reversing their stands on outsourcing, that would probably be the end of it. Maybe minority bar associations could be of assistance (if they aren't as bad as the other bar associations)since a lot of doc reviewers here are part of their constituency.
The purpose of LAAP should be to find allies to push the state bars and the ABA to reverse course.
For 8:34: Try http://entrepreneurs.dirtylawndry.com/2009/01/21/starting-a-solo-on-a-tight-budget/ It's new but practical.
While reaching out for allies, we must remember that we can't fight 1000 battles at the same time. We must make it clear that our focus is on ending outsourcing because it threatens to de-professionalize law.
I too would like to see outsourcing end on its own, but those of us on UE cannot afford to sit around and do nothing until we are totally without any $$.
Thanks 847
C.L.A.D.O.W
Contract attorneys against dothead outsourcing workers.
http://laapusa.blogspot.com/
New web address, new name. Laap was already taken, hence laapusa.
Check out
http://laapusa.blogspot.com/
It's ours.
a) Your mission statement does not appeal to anyone outside of contract attorneys. Conceptually it should feel more inclusive.
b) Also, your whole 'it's not a union, and thus it will appeal to agencies" does not fly. You need to decide whether you want to do this or not. If yes, then you are going to annoying agency owners. They are not stupid.
You are going to have to decide which side of the divide you are on. Interest-wise- your interests are not the same as agencies which are more than willing to engage in outsourcing. Just some observations.
laapusa -
looks like a great start - the intro is very well-written and compelling.
needs a pic across the top of the site, with young attorneys of all races... sort of like a cross section of the diversity of american attorneys.... people who are losing their jobs.
good work!
something like this -
http://www.greatblackspeakers.com/pictures/business_diversity_pic.JPG
We are contract attorneys. We can and should seek to make allies but we cannot take on every fight at once. We have to focus on stopping outsourcing legal work.
Saying that we must start a union or do nothing presents a false choice. We can have an association to fight outsourcing without forming a union. What sense does it make to start a union where there are no jobs anyway.
and needs a slogan like,
"American Diversity Works!"
10:30 is right about the need for a photo showing attorneys of all races. I tried the link at 10:32 but it didn't work. Maybe it was cut off a bit.
10:33
You are exactly right about this. You nailed it. A union will only drive jobs away. It'll have exactly the opposite of the effect we want.
We need to focus like a laser beam on fighting OUTSOURCING of American legal jobs, and we need to be making a LEGAL argument against it, as well as the argument that it is destroying opportunities for young American attorneys of all races, ethnicities and genders.
Outsourcing of legal jobs is stupid in any economy, but it is unconscionable in today's plummeting job market. It is destroying the hopes and aspirations of thousands and thousands of hardworking American young people who played by the rules and excelled at academics. It is crushing the dreams of young lawyers who are African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and female -- underrepresented American groups. It is selling out principles of legal ethics for the unprincipled chasing of profit -- which is analogous to the causes of the Wall Street banking crisis.
10:34 How about a slogan that says something about outsourcing? Maybe a picture of attorneys of all races with a slogan across it saying something like Outsourcing Costs Jobs - For All of Us.
I agree to pay up to $150 in dues, if we can appoint or vote on a qualified, ethical Treasurer, in addition to a Prez, VP, and Secretary. We can incorporate in DC as a non-profit and apply for 501 (c)(3) status! I have a lot of experience starting non-profits as an attorney, btw. Are there any qualified CPAs or others who deal with money out there, to volunteer to be treasurer?
Law firms seem eager to show that they are pushing diversity. Maybe that could be used as an angle to get them to sign some sort of pledge agreeing not to participate in outsourcing legal work which has an outsize impact on attorneys of color. The signed pledge could be publicized as something they could point to showing their commitment to diversity.
Suggestion on a dues structure:
Graduated LS < 1 years ago: $50/yr
Graduated LS 1-3 years ago: $100/yr
Graduated LS >3 years ago: $150/yr
Dues are essential if we are to maintain a website, conduct lobbying activities, etc. I suggest we hire a licensed federal lobbyist in DC who is one of us, and that person can monitor TARP and other legislation, meet with Congressional staff, etc.
If we get 1000 members at an average of $100 a pop, that's $100K right there... for a combination of website, media and PR, lobbying, etc.
I wish that those of you pushing for unionization would spend a few minutes actually looking into the idea. You will quickly learn that the reason we work for temp agencies instead of directly for the firm handling the case is to create the joint employer relationship. This arrangement makes organizing a union nearly impossible.
That said, there is work. I am working now, and am aware of several other agencies with financial and IP matters going right now. Push your recruiters, especially those at the less-respected agencies, and you'll find that work is going on.
10:50
The firms will NEVER EVER sign a pledge, that is very naive.
You have to play HARDBALL, or no ball, in something like this.
Take it from me, I worked on the Hill for 6 years... I know politics. Publicly asking for a pledge (esp. too early) is tantamount to an admission of weakness. The ball stays in your court and they put the onus on you to justify it.
You want to publicly SHAME THEM by playing on their greed, and the disproportionate negative impact outsourcing has on minorities who are US CITIZENS.
They will laugh at a request to sign a pledge. It makes us look like weak supplicants, rather than people with a righteous cause demanding we be respected.
10:52
I think the talk about unionization has pretty much stopped here, earlier this afternoon.
We're not talking about a union now, but an advocacy group to fight against legal outsourcing.
This is emphatically *NOT* a union!!!
10:52 you sound kinda trollish. There is no work going on (except for a few crumbs here and there being thrown to the usual skeletal crews) and we are not starting a union, we are organizing to oppose outsourcing.
10:54 it was just a suggestion.I seem to remember that years ago political candidates were pressured to sign no tax pledge cards so I was just kind of wondering whether we could do something similar with firms using pledge cards as a way to show a commitment to diversity. If that's not doable, so be it.
We do need dues, a real organizational structure and real lobbying, as suggested.
11:02
Yes, it often can work when one candidate asks another to sign, say an "ethics pledge"... but when an advocacy group asks big corporations to sign a pledge to do something, often the corp's PR people make a mockery of it...
But yes, if you couch it as a pledge to promote DIVERSITY, specifically in legal temp work, that might work. But I wouldn't do that right away.
On the other hand, I would definitely play up the diversity angle effective immediately. Whoever came up with this angle here is brilliant.
Remember, the focus is on AMERICAN diversity. The hopes and dreams of young AMERICANS.
The big corporations and law firms will try to cleverly twist it into a kind of "Global Diversity".
They will counter by creating websites showing Indian, Asian, White, and Black attorneys together, doing doc review, etc.
The implication will be because they show Indians on their site along with the Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc., that constitutes diversity. Throwing Indians into the mix will be their form of subtly saying that "Outsourcing also equals diversity". They will play a psychological angle to blur the diversity argument against outsourcing.
So, we have to present the argument as AMERICAN diversity, with stars and stripes, PLUS African-Americans, Hispanics, etc.
"American Diversity Works for the Legal Profession"
"America's Young Lawyers -- Diversity That Works"
The word "America" or "Americans" has to be in there, along with diversity.
11:14, I'm 11:02. I agree with everything you say but I do think that, since we are fighting outsourcing, we should use a slogan that refers to it.
Agree with 1054. It's the reality of the game: Know the interests and how to play them. That's rule number 1. Everyone has some kind of interest. You need to know what they are.
Several of my suggestions, including the name change to LAAP, about making your mission statement friendly by appealing to more people than just yourselves are based on understanding the game.
If you are serious- know your interest, know the interest of the other players around you, and plot a stratagy according to the reality of the interests involved.
11:19
Amen. This is how it's done on the Hill...
11:19
Amen. That's how it's done on the Hill. Hardball...
by the way- I would not focus on dues. I would focus on membership. You are pulling the cart before the horse. Get people involved and wanting to work on your cause. Reach out to the political directors of politicians in your district. Let them know about the issues you want them to address. Build a buzz. Again basic organizing principles. Once you get that and volunteers, then you get the other things. Right now, this is a random website. Not action.
11:19 (first comment)
Not necessarily.
Big media campaigns on controversial issues often intentionally choose not to focus on the negative, and instead turn around the issue and focus on some aspect which is positive, like:
"Diversity Works!"
We can rant all we want on a website, in a blurb, or in a lobby meeting or conference and use the term "outsourcing" ad nauseam, but to put it in our slogan - not a good idea. The slogan should be positive, and not remind everyone immediately about the group's negative stance, because that sounds like we're putting our whining front-and-center.
11:24
Trust me, nothing ever gets done in the world of politics if it's just relegated to talk. Unless a cause is organized with a clear organizational structure and dues-paying membership, it amounts to a nebulous cause. The goals of the group must crystallize into something highly organized on a world class level. It has to be slick, and it HAS to be able to deploy money.
Just informally talking to (or trying to talk to) politicians won't help.
Trust me, politicians don't really give anyone their ear in a serious way unless there is a paid, funded lobbying effort behind it which can actually mobilize money. Sad but very true.
Let's "deal with the real" as The Roots say.
The reason for the association is to stop outsourcing so I think a slogan such as Outsourcing Costs U.S. Jobs with a visual showing diversity would be a better idea.
1129
I was not referring to just talking. I am referring to understanding how grass roots organizing works. the goal of grassroot organizing is to organize, and then use that to push for what you want. if you get a list of 1000 voters in a house of reps district saying they don't like outsourcing of lawyers abroad- then you are going to see action. That's politics. Money or votes. You aren't going to have enough money to matter. Not against the big boys. But, you can have enough grassroots organization to matter. A thousand voters complaining gets people's attention.
Does anyone know how to set up an email network so we can email each other but not have our emails or identities appear here or anywhere on the web?
That is critical, because we need to get names/contact info of people who are well-versed in each major area:
-website design and technical
-handling money ethically / accounting
-setting up a nonprofit, 501c3, PAC or lobbying/advocacy group
-actually lobbying
-monitoring legislation
-etc.
Unless people with these skills can communicate off the web, then we can't organize this efficiently.
11:33
OK, definitely a visual and in fact a video about how outsourcing costs jobs. But the slogan has to focus on the positive only, because that's the very first thing that people associate with the group. It has to be couched in terms of a positive statement, not a whine.
I agree with 11;29, we don't have time to stagnate as a random website; we need our jobs back. We should get a dues-paying organizational structure in place as soon as possible to show that we are serious. UE doesn't last forever, and it wouldn't be enough to pay that student loan debt and rent, even id it did.
even if it did
11:34
Not saying any of that stuff shouldn't be done. Those are great ideas, and necessary ones.
Just saying that you need all that, IN ADDITION to a well-organized structure, with dues paying members.
Why not have both? And why not jump start them both at the same time?
In my experience, you'll get some work out of unpaid volunteers, but never as much as you initially hope for.
You do need some grassroots/volunteer organizing, but in addition, what will make the difference is having a well-organized advocacy group with a small paid staff and a real, registered lobbyist.
Dues don't have to be huge, they won't bankrupt anyone here. I'm assuming we can ALL afford $50 a year, and most of us can afford more.
11:36 I agree with focusing on the positive, which is why I voted for Law As A Profession as the name, even though I had suggested CLOO -Contract Lawyers Opposing Outsourcing. I just think we should make sure that we keep the focus on ending outsourcing while pushing the diversity angle because if we want our jobs back, outsourcing must end.
good luck getting people to donate. as i said, that's typically not how this works. trust me- if you have ever fund raised, you would k now why.
I was being coy with that last post. Let me explain why I am telling you what I am saying. Basically for these sorts of thing to work people must feel emotionally vested. Vesting requires getting them involved. I can just tell you about how fund raising and politics works. I can't speak of the specifics here. But, like I said, I am not going to ve involved so maybe you are right for this particular cause.
10:44
Agreed. The focus should definitely be on outsourcing. By all means, attack it relentlessly and bring up all the arguments against it on the website, in literature, in lobbying efforts and even maybe someday in ads.
But the *slogan* should be couched in a positive way, like "America's Young Attorneys -- Diversity Works!"
Notice we have said "AMERICA'S young attorneys"
Why American? Because that is the antithesis of outsourcing.
Why young? It's not really only young attorneys who are affected, but young attorneys are disproportionately affected. Also, the public has much more sympathy for young attorneys than for old, gray-haired ones who are associated with being greedy, overpaid, deceitful, shrewd, aggressive, and unprincipled.
Why diversity? Plays up the fact that America is so diverse right here that we don't need to outsource. And that minority attorneys are being disproportionately impacted by outsourcing.
Why works? Because that's what we all want to do, and in fact, that's what SOCIETY wants us to do -- work, and not be on welfare or unemployment.
"good luck getting people to donate'
Dues are *not* a donation, they are a mandatory payment made to become a member of an organization. There have to be corresponding benefits to members, like maybe newsletters and a bulletin of inside info on all the newest doc review and temp jobs info.
To couch it as a "donation" still makes it look like a disorganized bunch of volunteers, but it can't be that. It has to be an organized advocacy group, incorporated under the nonprofit laws of some state or DC. With officers and a staff. Eventually the staff will be paid... first just 2-3 people will draw salaries.
Then if we grow from 500--->1000--->10,000 and more, we can have an even bigger paid staff, offices in DC, and a real voice!
There would be no reason for any temp attorney who wants to continue his/her job, anywhere in the USA, NOT to join.
11:51 I really do think that when we are organizing for one issue, we should use a slogan that mentions it.
10:52
I agree. There's stuff out there but it isn't much.
Heard there's a patent litigation going on, and I'm sure there must be some financial stuff. But if you don't have an IP or accounting background or speak one of the languages they need, you're toast. There are so few projects at the moment that they can be choosy.
Incidently, there are other ways of making money as an attorney besides doc. review. Maybe you guys should expand your job search a little.
Why not invite suggestions for a slogan and then vote like with the name?
11:57 you sound trollish as well. We know there is nothing & that's why we are organizing, whether you like it or not.
This is *not* fundraising, people.
It is an organization that formally charges dues on its website.
You either pay and join, or don't pay and go fuck off.
Most smart temp attorneys will both:
1) Have the money to pay dues, and
2) See the value in paying dues to such an organization
The rest of 'em who aren't interested in joining, let them go literally fuck themselves.
We really can't do much if we have no budget whatsoever. We can't have a serious organization without paying our dues.
Again- I don't care but realistically, it hard to convince me to give money. But it's not hard to organize and get them involved. It's just a lesson I've learned from actually running organizations that are involved in issues advocacy. So, all I can say is good luck and hope you are right. But it's not been my experience over the years.
Tom, it would be great if you put on a link to LAAP http://laapusa.blogspot.com/
12:07
I've also successfully founded and run non-profits (2), plus worked on Capitol Hill (House, Senate, and lobbying).
While there are some similarities, there are big differences between an issue advocacy group which primarily raises money by making fundraising pitches to the general public, and member organizations like the ABA, AMA, etc. which charge regular dues to their paying members.
In my experience, especially for new entrants, the latter type of organization -- the membership-based advocacy group -- is more formidable than the fundraising-focused nonprofit.
Incidentally in the US Tax Code section 501, there are numerous different "flavors" of nonprofit and advocacy organizations -- so we have to choose the proper one for our needs.
If we make this a typical nonprofit doing direct mail and telephone solicitation of "donations", that's in my experience the much tougher, and losing, route for a fledgling organization like this.
OTOH, if we go the formal, dues-charging membership org route, that kind of structure has a much more powerful dynamic from the jump.
There are pros and cons to using each strategy. Generally, when there's a built-in constituency for a certain cause, and it affects people's pocketbooks, and it's related to their profession, then you go the membership org route and charge dues.
If it's something like a disease, or ban-the-nuclear-plant, then you generally go the nonprofit/fundraising route.
There are reasons for this.
12:17 makes sense.
1217
You maybe right. At any rate, one of the things you definitely need to do is link this to the wider outsourcing issue and lose of the American middle class. Anyway, good luck.
There will be astronauts walking on Pluto before any of these ideas come even close to materializing. If you cannot break the barrier between you and the biglaw power circles, who happen to be those who look at LPO options to begin with and who effectively banned you from ever having a career in your chosen profession since your first day in class in 1L, then you will never be able to stop outsourcing, or any other business decisions that potentially make your life harder for that matter. Your interests conflict with those in power, whether it be in biglaw, the ABA or on the Hill. The old boys circle never cared about TTT's, the middle class or other assorted minorities before and will never care about you even after things change. Just like how you are unwilling to give up your jobs to Indians, they are equally unwilling to give you a slice of the real, actual pie of law. You will never see a single bite of that pie as long as you live unless some people somehow find a way to crash the party and take over. If not, then I'm afraid this is a lost cause like it's always been. Remember that as long as the elitism culture remains in the profession, the guys on top can do whatever they please. This is not a glass ceiling but a brick wall that needs to be shattered. I suggest to not only limit yourself to the peers of your profession but to also appeal to the wider, general public. After all, the sleepy middle class is still oblivious in general about how big wall street investment banker types and washington politicians continue to treat them. Wake up all the oppressed groups across the country and with more public sympathy than you can garner now you can run a more effective campaign for your causes.
We need to reach out about LAAP to temps who don't come here by contacting those we know and maybe having a press release sent to the posselist & anywhere else that makes sense.
We need allies that the ABA and state bars will listen to - allies like minority bar associations, if they would be inclined to help. Our cause would be better served by narrowcasting to key decision-makers than broadcasting to the public at large. If the state bars and the ABA change their stands on outsourcing, it will end.
I also suggest a different name for the organization.
Law As A Profession is good in that it's positive, but it is a loaded phrase -- it begs the question "a profession as opposed to what?", which is not really our focus.
I would suggest the American Association of Contract Attorneys (AACA), or the American Contract Lawyers Association (ACLA -- similar to American Trial Lawyers Assn -- ATLA).
Serious membership organizations don't usually try to make their name a clever acronym, like CLOO.
"LAAP" sounds funny and people will start saying it phonetically, i.e. "lap".
Plus it doesn't really indicate what our organization is about.
That said, the blurb on the LAAP blog is really well-written.
1:39
You are right and you're thinking strategically. Successful advocacy campaigns ALWAYS choose specific "pressure points" and apply pressure (they do this as much for efficient use of resources as for effectiveness).
The diversity/minority angle is an important pressure point, and the way to mobilize their power is with the minority bar associations and lawyers' organizations.
1:39 is 100000 percent right about narrowcasting to key decisionmakers.
This is not about massive protests in the streets by contract attorneys in front of outsourcing conferences.
This is about applying pressure at certain strategic pressure points -- state bar associations, ABA, etc.
My recommendation is a combination of pressing the legal argument -- that it's unlicensed practice of law -- and the idea that outsourcing disproportionately hurts young minority lawyers in the US.
Combine these two and focus more on applying pressure to decisionmakers, along with a modest public awareness campaign, and I think that's the winning strategy.
We don't need to capture the attention of the entire world, we need to get a few people - the state bar and ABA decision-makers- to retract their endorsements of outsourcing. Using the diversity angle is probably our best means of doing that.
Also, nothing will change unless we have a landmark court decision OR state bar opinion about this.
Right now, it's easy for the state bars and the ABA to simply rest upon the false "precedent" of their previous opinions. If they were predisposed to making those decisions before and their key decisionmakers don't change, then they will be predisposed to staying firm on those opinions, because nobody every comes out and says, "Hey, we were wrong! We decided the law incorrectly".
You have to either change the people, or push an aggressive new UPL complaint (or court case) that argues the law impeccably and exhaustively.
That's why we need to research EVERY UPL complaint on record with every state bar for the past 10-15 years. We need to research every important court decision on UPL. We need thorough research on every important case that DEFINES the "practice of law".
Then we put all this into a few well-placed state bar UPL cases, as well as potentially a class action, giving prominence to minority plaintiffs (and minority bar associations).
The law schools were putting out bad statistics... let's say, TOXIC statistics, like the toxic assets responsible for the credit crisis. They were LYING about percentages of grads employed in good jobs after graduation, etc. They were totally twisting their stats and it was obvious, and I knew it even then. Why didn't y'all see that?
___________________________________
Well, you claim to have saw it but just like everyone else, you went to law school anyway. Even if you went for free, that doesn't make a lot of sense if you knew that everything the schools were claiming about job opportunities was a lie. Being indebted and unemployed sucks, but so does being debt-free and unemployed.
What was your purpose in attending law school if not to gain employment as a lawyer?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez15-2009feb15,0,7634251.column
Playing the race card to attack the way the real players of the game do business and demand a change in your favor will not work guys.
12:49 sounds like a scared LPO troll.
Playing the race card? This is not some phony game. There is a very high proportion of attorneys of color that have supported themselves through doc review. The minority bar associations should get involved and push the diversity angle to stop outsourcing.
10:50
There's already a NYC bar opinion (which the courts will follow). It's pretty restrictive and compares foreign attorneys to non-attorneys.
My guess is that the courts are waiting to set a precedent. I don't think anyone has been crazy enough to outsource legal work on a large scale until now.
The following may be of some use. Technological data exported (this includes patent/technology doc. reviews) is subject to EAR and ITAR. It's being enforced against patent applications, but it stands to reason that it will also be enforced against doc. reviews that contain said data.
"Failure to comply with ITAR can result in civil fines as high as $500,000 per violation, while criminal penalties include fines of up to $1,000,000 and 10 years imprisonment per violation. Under EAR, maximum civil files have increased to $250,000 per violation, while criminal penalties can be as high as $1,000,000 and 20 years imprisonment per violation."
Here's a link that explains it better:
http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=21842&deptid=3
It relates to patent outsorcing but it will also apply to doc. reviews that disclose technology.
Oh yeah, to get the license it takes months and is fairly difficult.
Yeah the PTO has , as far as I know, put a big roadblock in the way of doing patent work abroad. When you think about it, it's even more insane to try to do patent work abroad when you realize that patent work is a lot more about the "art" of writing patents just right (as are trademarks) than it is simply a matter of reviewing emails that may or may not be highly specific. Mastery of the language would seem paramount considering the complexity of the documents. Yet, even here, you had potential actors pretending that did not matter. It's truly amazing what people will do for a short gain.
1:18 is right. That article shows that outsourcing is insanely reckless. It has implications far beyond patent work.
Never under-estimate the stupidity of the human race.
We've been smoking cigarettes since ancient times, and the evidence started piling up in the 20th century, showing that is causes lung cancer (a horrific way to die; ask any oncologist), yet people continue to keep smoking.
This isn't any different: the law firms and big corporations will continue to outsource document review to India, knowing full well that in the end there will be an enormous backlash. They wouldn't care if the work contained nuclear secrets, they will still do it. They will not stop.
Our only hope is the high-powered agencies (e.g. Hudson legal, part of a a gigantic, publicly-traded corporation) putting up a fit because their legal branch is no longer profitable.
2:13 That is not our only hope. LAAP is a great idea.
BTW doc review work is so important to attorneys of color here that they should be storming the gates of those barbarians at the state bar associations and the ABA. The minority bar associations should be all over them, demanding an end to the outsourcing of these jobs.
1:57
Outsorcing patent stuff was more or less BS anyway.
The hassle invovled in trying to fix a screwed up patent and dealing with the logistics of outsorcing would make it pretty unprofitable. The PTO ruling was just the nail in the coffin.
Some of you LAAP guys should look into filing a class action and starting criminal proceedings against Perla. Pangea3 dropped the ball on the foreign filing license.
4:06 the article described the patent outsourcing that was found illegal to have been a multi-billion dollar business. You disagree? The first para says that,
For a number of years, inventors, businesses, and even some patent law firms have used overseas companies to conduct novelty searches and to assist in drafting and prosecuting U.S. patent applications. This outsourcing practice has developed into a multi-billion dollar annual business with foreign countries, particularly India.
421
The illegal drug business brings in several billion dollars a year. Do you disagree? If not, then you will agree that legality is not determined by short term profit. Would you disagree that exotic derivatives, although highly profitable to start, are now considered to have been a mistake even regarding the economics. Before you answer, check out the stock market which has lost more than the value of the gains generated by the exotic derivatives. My point? You arguing a red herring. If you are so smart about business- why the hell are you here? The sending of patent work abroad has come to an end. You site one article which addresses one issue, but miss that we are discussing the practice of law.
As I said before, the main issue with many of you who argue as you do is that you want to treat the practice like it's a widget. Like you replace one professional with another. I would not presume to pretend to be able to practice the laws of India even if I took a course in it. The same wholes true of the specifics of patent law in the U.S.
Here's a blog I used to frequent on the subject:
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/07/outsourcing-of.html
by the way- the result of you google the subject is that many people believe that it has chilled patent work outsourcing. Has it ended it- no. There always going to be people who will to take stupid risks. That's not the question. Just like there are people who will sell illegal drugs. No one sits around saying that's the standard for what the law is.
OT: has anyone been looking at the legal markets outside of NYC? I think ours is probably the market most changed due to the impact of the crash and recession.
4:43 I am 4:21 and I really don't understand your comment. I was just asking a question of 4:06, who said that the patent outsourcing that was found to be illegal was no big deal. I was quoting an article someone posted a link to earlier because it described the outsourced patent work that was found illegal as having been a multibillion dollar business. I was just asking 4:06 to comment on that.
523
What's the purpose of asking a question that's already plainly understood? Why is your question relevant?
4:06 said one thing, but the article said something else. I was just asking if, in view of the article, 4:06 still thought that the patent work that was found to be illegal was no big deal. Articles aren't always right, so I just wanted to know if 4:06 thought the article was wrong.
552
I apologize. I thought the questions were rhectorical in nature, and meant to push the "they make money off of this so it's okay" argument over the question of whether under our legal system we should allow legal work to be outsourced given the nature of the work. But I was wrong regarding your intent, and for that, I apologize.
Thanks 6:11, no problem. Actually I did something similar recently to a poster I thought was pushing LPO garbage. I didn't follow the link so, I didn't know that he was joking. Being on UE doesn't put me in any great mood.
4:06
I disagree that it was a multi-billion dollar industry in terms of legal fees. Multi-billion dollar industry -- give me a break.
Maybe you could say it's a multi-billion dollar industry if you (over)valued the crummy patents from all over the world that were done in India. They're also taking into acccount the patents that were ligitimatly filed there based on PCT apps.
However, you guys are missing my point. It's not whether or not outsorcing of patent apps is viable (it's not). What's important is whether or not outsorcing doc. review is in violation of EAR and ITAR.
I suspect that it is, in particular when it relates to Technology or Patent reviews.
6:41 is right and it shows that the state bars and ABA do not have the power to declare outsourcing doc review legal. Biglaw is wrong in thinking they have a foolproof permission slip in those ethics opinions.
This guy is in outsourcing, and has given CLEs on the ethics of outsourcing. He was quoted somewhere saying the ABA opinion only repeats what some state bar opinions had said, and that it is not carte blanche for outsourcing. His CLE presentations are linked from his blog but you have to register.
http://blog.law-scribe.com/
I found slides of one of his CLEs
http://www.slideshare.net/MarkRossLPO/Offshore-Legal-Outsourcing-the-Ethical-Implications-Webinar-Sep-9th-2008
The findings about the outsourcing of patent work being illegal show that biglaw is deluding itself by relying upon ethics opinions to justify outsourcing.
That idiot isn't even barred in the US. I could care less about what he has to say. What is he going to do say, "Oh yeah, outsorcing is my buisness, but it's a real big risk and you can get in lots of trouble for doing it."
By the way, never trust a non-barred J.D. They either got disbarred or they're up to something shaddy and don't want their license yanked.
Maybe someone should file a complaint about non-attorneys giving legal advice, if he actually crosses the line and does so.
I watched the webnar a while back.
I got the impression they hadn't done an actual doc. review yet but were pushing for it. It seemed to me the majority of work done there was paralegaly junk.
He was also nervous about the USPTO thing and said they would do another webnar in the future covering the EAR license. I don't think he did one, probably because he doesn't want to look like a complete idiot or total charlatan.
Ignou, Rainmaker offer course in legal process outsourcing
The industry in India is expected to grow to about $640 million by the end of 2010, says a research firm
Malathi Nayak
New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Open University, or Ignou, and Mumbai-based Rainmaker, a legal talent management house, have started a one-year course to train lawyers and final-year law students in legal process outsourcing, or LPO, which is expected to grow rapidly amid the global economic downturn.
Law and order: The ClutchGroup Global Legal Solutions office in Bangalore. Legal process outsourcing firms provide legal support services including research, analysis, consultation and documentation reviews. Hemant Mishra / Mint
According to a survey by research firm ValueNotes, the country’s LPO industry in 2007 reported revenue of $225 million (Rs1,107 crore), which is expected to grow to around $640 million by the end of 2010. LPO provides legal support services including research, analysis, consultation and documentation reviews. Law firms in recession-hit economies such as the US and Europe can take advantage of India’s vast talent pool, including English-speaking attorneys, to reduce costs and boost efficiency.
The new distance education course—which leads to a post-graduate diploma in LPO—is divided into two semesters, said Aju John, who heads the knowledge services division at Rainmaker. Admission to the course—which costs Rs15,000 in fees—will be on a first-come-first-served basis, John added. Ignou’s 61 regional centres across India will offer accessibility to those who want to pursue the course, which started on 15 February.
Krishna Deva Rao, director at the School of Law at Ignou, New Delhi, said LPO sector needs lawyers with specific skill sets not covered in courses offered by the country’s law schools. “The LPO sector is developing as a specialized industry that requires a special kind of lawyers that have a basic understanding of the US and UK legal systems with a special training in emerging areas of law,” Rao said.
According to Rakhi Sharma, vice-president of human resources division at Gurgaon-based LPO firm United Lex, “The slowdown in US has given a significant push to the revenues of the Indian LPO industry, with the sector reporting a rise of over 200% in revenues in the past 12 months,” adding, “Of the $6 billion worth of work that the US legal industry is expected to outsource, legal work worth $2 billion can come to India,” Sharma said.
Matthew Banks, senior vice-president of Mumbai-headquartered LPO company Integreon’s legal services division, said his company has an in-house academy that trains its Indian lawyers.
“This (distance education) course could fill a gap for those organizations that don’t have in-house training capabilities. Training like this is useful for lawyers who switch from traditional litigation practice to the LPO sector,” he said.
Bhavin Patel, vice-president, training, at Rainmaker, said 200 students had registered for the course so far. “It is a mix of lawyers and law students—60% practising lawyers and 40% law students.”
Ignou will use the teleconferencing technology available at its regional centres and reach out to the students of the course, Rao said. “We aspire to take it (the course) to South Asia and then South-East Asia where there is a chance to make it an international programme,” Rao said. Ignou has 52 international partner institutions in 40 countries.
Once again, the LPO frauds show that they are afraid that they do not have a firm grip on the biglaw business by posting their used-car salesmanlike crap on this blog.
That is the only reason they have a 24 hour a day public relations campaign going on here. If they thought we were done for, they wouldn't bother obsessing over a blog for temp attorneys.
More trash talk from LPO trash.
They probably have some swampland in India they'd like to sell too.
That's just some Indians trying to con other Indians. If you've ever been to India, you'd see that this kind of nonsense goes on non-stop.
They'll sell some useless piece of paper to some gullable person.
As far as the projected growth numbers, they're trying to sell something, so they lie.
Reminds me of certain law schools in the US.
I posted the Mark Ross material to show arguments being made. I'm not saying they are good arguments - I've only skimmed them and haven't read the opinions he cites. But the fact he is licensed in the UK rather than the U.S., and is in the business, doesn't address the merits of his arguments.
The "Webinar" can be downloaded here.
http://www.ssonetwork.com/webinar_detail.aspx?id=2732
I wonder if the threat of outsourcing will drive down wages, even if the threat is not real.
Strategic has a project starting on Wednesday. Deloitte always needs people willing to go to Westfield. I know several people working through Dine right now.
There is work out there, but you need to be the sort of reviewer who actually gets things done in order to get it. When the agencies get to be picky, they give work to the people who work hard and don't create problems.
I've been working long-term on an IP review for a media company, and am not looking to jump projects, but if I'm getting calls and emails about projects, then I know there is work out there to be done.
1152
So anyone not working is because they are not good workers? Look, I know people on projects too. Some of them are good workers. Some not. So, I got to laugh at the claim given what I know about the one's who are not. You confuse your luck with whether or not that means there is enough work to go around. There simply is not enough work to go around. By your definition the recession is about people not wanting to work too. Truly a bizare position take.
I wasn't called for the Strategic project but I have heard it is very small and very short - one of those projects that is supposed to last for a couple of weeks and will most likely last for a few days. Very few reviewers are working and the very few projects there are are very short, mainly lasting for a few days. As we all know from the huge amount of us who are not working, there is virtually no doc review going on in NYC or NJ.
The idea that the few reviewers who are working are picked by merit is a joke. They are picked for being cute or being the types who are like the recruiters who pick them. I have seen agency favorites who are almost never even at their computers. It has nothing to do with working hard. So many claim to be reviewing more docs per hour than is humanly possible. Of course, at least when they are U.S. attorneys there is an argument that hiring them meets due diligence, unlike the case with the non-attorneys in the LPO sweatshops.
Post a Comment