If Not There, Where?
According to a recent federal lawsuit, Maryland attorney Joseph A. Hennessey believes he has uncovered a significant flaw in the practice of offshoring: compromised confidentiality.
The suit alleges that offshoring legal work constitutes a waiver of the attorney-client privilege and Fourth Amendment protection, since data sent overseas may be subject to eavesdropping by the U.S. government, according to a recent article in the Legal Times.
“This waiver of rights would nullify the reasonable expectation of privacy that American citizens — litigating purely domestic disputes in U.S. Courts — would have in the documents that they produce in the course of civil litigation,” the complaint reads.
Some of the nation’s largest law firms and corporations have outsourced legal work, including Arnold & Porter, Howrey, United Technologies Corp., Oracle Corp. and Bayer AG, according to The Washington Times.
A favorable ruling could have significant implications for the future of offshoring, potentially curtailing the outsourcing of legal functions including litigation support.
Many law firms and corporate legal departments rely on cheap foreign labor to perform document review, coding, indexing and other litigation support functions. Any downward shift in the amount of litigation support/e-discovery work performed abroad will undoubtedly raise the demand for services and talent here in the United States, potentially driving salaries upward yet again as the war for talent reaches an alarming level.
What do you think about the practice of offshoring? Should law firms obtain consent before client data is sent abroad or disclose their use of foreign legal service providers? Feel free to weigh in.
