William Marsh
Kim Keenan
This was an email I sent out today at 1:55 pm to both Kim Keenan and William Harris who are both candidates for President-Elect of the DC Bar.
My name is Gabriel Acevedo, and I am a DC Bar member, and currently the Director of Attorney Placement for a small legal staffing agency. I am also the owner of a blog entitled Gabe’s Guide to the E-discovery Universe, which you can find at http://www.gabesguide.com/. It is a modest blog that I have had for two months now, and greatly enjoy. So far I have had roughly 500 visitors. Although that number is fairly small, many of those visitors are DC barred contract attorneys working on document review projects all over District of Columbia.
First off, I would like to congratulate the both of you on being selected to be the candidates for President-Elect of the DC Bar. I have read up on the both of your careers and also about your tireless and often thankless service to not only the DC Bar, but also the voluntary Bar Association of District of Columbia. I feel that either of you will do an excellent job as President-Elect, and eventually President of the DC Bar.
My question to the both of you is about your opinion regarding the trend towards legal outsourcing overseas, which most recently was summed up in a Washington Post article that you can read here. I myself firmly believe in the concept of outsourcing. Outsourcing helps save money for clients and can make projects more efficient.
That being said, I am growing more and more concerned about the ethical implications of legal work that is being done in other countries, especially in regards to electronic discovery reviews. I am stunned that no state or national bar organization have been more aggressive in at the very least trying to reign in this current trend.
To further clarify my point, let’s take for example a standard litigation document review completed through some form of an electronic discovery review tool. I am fully aware that a non-licensed attorney or paralegal is fully capable of performing an e-discovery review with complete competence, and there are those out there that do. However, a non licensed attorney or paralegal must be held to a much higher level of supervision than a licensed attorney in District of Columbia.
As you know with the advent of e-discovery, many of these reviews are massive with tens sometimes hundreds of attorneys reviewing millions of pages of documents. Although some of these oversea reviews are conducted by American Law graduates with U.S. licenses, most are not. They are conducted by attorneys licensed in other countries who have never attended an American law school. Obviously, the level of supervision for these types of reviews will be much greater than had these attorneys been licensed in the District of Columbia. In these cases, how can a firm claim adequate supervision and quality control? Is said firm going to go back through not just the responsive documents, but non-responsive as well? This type of supervision is much more labor intensive so how could they accomplish this and still be cost-effective for the client?
I am proud of my membership to the DC Bar, but I also believe that there is a reason why we are given these licenses. If the Bar does not act to stop this practice of sending discovery reviews and other legal work overseas, I believe they are bordering on condoning the practice of law without a license.
I would like to know your thoughts on this matter, and what actions as a DC Bar President would you take, if any. I, of course, will be more than happy to post your answers to my blog, so at least your efforts in answering will gain you a small amount of exposure.
Thank you both for your service and commitment to the Bar, and I wish the both of you the best of luck.
Warmest Regards,
Gabriel Acevedo
GabesGuide.com
First off, I would like to congratulate the both of you on being selected to be the candidates for President-Elect of the DC Bar. I have read up on the both of your careers and also about your tireless and often thankless service to not only the DC Bar, but also the voluntary Bar Association of District of Columbia. I feel that either of you will do an excellent job as President-Elect, and eventually President of the DC Bar.
My question to the both of you is about your opinion regarding the trend towards legal outsourcing overseas, which most recently was summed up in a Washington Post article that you can read here. I myself firmly believe in the concept of outsourcing. Outsourcing helps save money for clients and can make projects more efficient.
That being said, I am growing more and more concerned about the ethical implications of legal work that is being done in other countries, especially in regards to electronic discovery reviews. I am stunned that no state or national bar organization have been more aggressive in at the very least trying to reign in this current trend.
To further clarify my point, let’s take for example a standard litigation document review completed through some form of an electronic discovery review tool. I am fully aware that a non-licensed attorney or paralegal is fully capable of performing an e-discovery review with complete competence, and there are those out there that do. However, a non licensed attorney or paralegal must be held to a much higher level of supervision than a licensed attorney in District of Columbia.
As you know with the advent of e-discovery, many of these reviews are massive with tens sometimes hundreds of attorneys reviewing millions of pages of documents. Although some of these oversea reviews are conducted by American Law graduates with U.S. licenses, most are not. They are conducted by attorneys licensed in other countries who have never attended an American law school. Obviously, the level of supervision for these types of reviews will be much greater than had these attorneys been licensed in the District of Columbia. In these cases, how can a firm claim adequate supervision and quality control? Is said firm going to go back through not just the responsive documents, but non-responsive as well? This type of supervision is much more labor intensive so how could they accomplish this and still be cost-effective for the client?
I am proud of my membership to the DC Bar, but I also believe that there is a reason why we are given these licenses. If the Bar does not act to stop this practice of sending discovery reviews and other legal work overseas, I believe they are bordering on condoning the practice of law without a license.
I would like to know your thoughts on this matter, and what actions as a DC Bar President would you take, if any. I, of course, will be more than happy to post your answers to my blog, so at least your efforts in answering will gain you a small amount of exposure.
Thank you both for your service and commitment to the Bar, and I wish the both of you the best of luck.
Warmest Regards,
Gabriel Acevedo
GabesGuide.com
6 comments:
It is about time someone wrote about this. Very good letter Gabe. Keep up the good work.
Reviewing documents is not the practice of law. Responding to a subpoena does not require lawyers. I like Gabe but he is starting with the incorrect premise that the review of documents is the practice of law. It is a different matter that the attorney on the case is ultimately responsible for the response. Futhermore, when a lay person is served with a request for documents, the lay person is not required to hire an attorney to respond to the request. So, it is false to imply that the document productions require attorneys to begin with. Attorneys are involved to begin with because the document production is part of a legal matter that they are working on but the client can handle the document production however it chooses...with or without attorneys.
So if it is not considered "the practice of law" then why are only graduates of India's finest law schools being considered for LPO work?
Also, why don't we give this work then to American paralegals?
5:51 - I think it is up to each jurisdiction's bar to determine what constitutes the practice of law.
Actually 5:51 he is not starting with the wrong premise at all, you are.
What else do you think discovery is, but the practice of law?
He is not making the argument that paralegals or "non attorneys" cannot do discovery. He is saying that the level of supervision for non attorneys in discovery is much higher than that for attorneys who are licensed, which he is absolutely correct in saying. Any basic legal textbook on ethics and professional responsibility will tell you that.
I suggest that you read his letter again, bacause I think he is right on point with much of what is debated with sending our legal services avbroad.
Bob,
I would like to appreciate you on furthering this exciting issue amongst all, including the would-be President of the Bar.
We would like to publish your opinion in LPO Watch, India's first and only magazine (online) going to Indian and US based attorneys. You may visit www.kpoconsultants.com to download the earlier editions.
We are sure; you would also like to hear the other side of this coin.
Rgds,
PANKAJ PARNAMI
www.kpoconsultants.com
OMG that comment above mine from KPO should be more than ample reason why we should NOT ship our legal work overseas. Who theheck is Bob? The freakin blog is Gabe's Guide for Chri** sake--LMAO!!!
Post a Comment