Opportunity Knocks : Litigation Support Staffing : The Cowen Group : Ediscovery Recruiters, Candidate Search, Practice Support, Position Placement

After a long, uncertain summer, it appears that the dam is breaking for the E-Discovery industry. The Cowen Groups Q3 Staffing Report found that 35% of major law firms, and 29% of F500 Corporations, anticipate adding staff by years end. In both sectors, nearly half of respondents worked more hours in Q3 than Q2, 2009 – largely due to additional workflow.

Firms and corporations have realigned their strategy to focus on cautious expansion while simultaneously recognizing that continued reliance on existing staff can create long-term staff burnout and exodus.

If you’d like a copy of the report or a full rundown on the 175 law firms and 55 high fortune companies that were surveyed, please contact me (David@CowenGroup.com).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In my session at ILTA on the future of Litigation Support, I asked how many people were working longer and harder today compared to six months ago. 70% of the group raised their hands.

This show of hands, combined with recent data collected by The Cowen Group, indicates that the Litigation Support industry has hit the bottom of the recession (I can’t speak for the entire legal industry or the economy at large). Most litigation support professionals are working harder and longer for one of two reasons:

1)      Because staff cuts have forced them to do the job of two or more people; or

2)      Because their organization has experienced a net increase in work.

Working long and harder, month after month, is not sustainable. Eventually, litigation support and E-Discovery departments will need to add headcount and expand their ranks. Is this expansion happening yet?

We invite you to participate in our Q3 Staffing Trends Survey which will be distributed next week. In it, we ask the following three questions:

1)      Are you and your team working harder and longer compared to three months ago?

2)      Do you plan to add headcount, reduce headcount or keep staffing levels the same between now and the end of the year?

3)      What is your greatest challenge entering the 4^th quarter of 2009? Technology, Workflow/Process Improvement or People?

The Cowen Group’s Q2 Staffing Report found that nearly 1/3 of surveyed Litigation Support departments in the AmLaw 200 planned on adding staff before the end of 2009. I am looking forward to reporting the most recent data next week.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week’s ILTA conference was better than ever. Although attendance was down considerably, I believe that less is more this year.

Fewer people means increased intimacy, more meaningful discussions and enhanced opportunities to create relationships and engage in a long, uninterrupted exchange of ideas.

This year, the people who were able to attend ILTA were clearly decision-makers and influencers, not lieutenants and junior professionals. Everyone came with specific purpose – to learn and engage in a meaningful senior-level exchange of ideas. Attendees and vendors alike could spend more time with key decision makers than in past conferences.

We attend ILTA to explore new technologies, work flows, processes, vendors and systems but at the end of the day, it’s about the people. The technology doesn’t create itself, sell itself or run itself. Workflow and process improvement can’t be canned, packaged or replicated without talented people involved in the technology’s inception, implementation and execution.

While at ILTA, I polled 100+ people on their greatest challenge entering the fourth quarter of 2009. Of these attendees, 20% said their greatest challenge is technology, 60% said it is process workflow and 20% said it is people. If 60% of the challenge is process workflow, isn’t that truly a challenge about people? Without the right people, you can’t originate, implement or execute the process or make informed technology decisions.

People come to ILTA for a variety of reasons. They want to learn about technology improvements, workflow and process improvements and new vendors. But, at the end of the day, it’s really about the people.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Five years ago, when I first attended LegalTech in New York, the litigation support industry was beginning to come into its own.   32 conferences and 5 years later, I am thrilled and honored to be speaking at this year’s ILTA conference on evolving roles and the future of our litigation support profession.

I’ll be speaking with Ruth C. Hauswirth, Director of Practice Services and Professional Development at Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, Joanne R. Lane, Director of E-Discovery Strategy & Litigation Support at MetLife and Ellen Jones Polhamus, Practice Technology Director at Morgan at Lewis & Bockius LLP.

I hope you’ll join me on Tuesday, August 25^th at 1:30pm as we examine recent trends and look into the crystal ball to see what might be on your career horizon. 

In the meantime, I invite you to take a sneak peak at the presentation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New technologies and process have made, and are making great strides/improvements in reducing the volumes of data that must be reviewed by someone somewhere. Whether you’re in-house, onshore, farmshore or offshore – the quantity of documents to review is finally beginning to drop.

Unfortunately, the ability to fully utilize these new technologies & processes – Clearwell, EnCase, Recommind and others – is a different story. There simply are not enough people that have a deep and meaningful experience with these tools/technologies to satisfy the industry’s needs. The talent is scattered – some Corporate, some Vendor and a fair amount within Law Firms.

Why don’t we have more deep talent? The industry has simply grown too much too fast – there just hasn’t been time for the appropriate amount of talent to be trained and developed.

And to be truthful… I do not see much real training going on.

We’ve been here before. During the late 1990’s, when Microsoft and Cisco were taking over the world - corporations were installing new versions of software every 6-12 months and demanded employees with Microsoft and Cisco certifications. Understandably, when corporations (or anyone) spend millions/billions on new technologies and business process improvements, they want more than the local copy shop boys.

Back then most/many corporations paid for their employees to get those certifications. It was in their best interest and significantly cheaper than paying recruiter fees. Certification, $6,000 vs. recruiting fee, $25,000… it’s a no brainer. And many tech gurus paid for their own training because it represented a clear career path up.

Yet here we are 5 years into this E-Discovery explosion (2004 – 2009), in a reportedly $4B industry (growing/shrinking?) and there is no organized /recognized training.  If we do not address this issue/opportunity, we will return to the War for Talent we just witnessed from 2004 – 2008.

There is something terribly short sighted going on here.

 

What’s the solution? Ask me what I think vendors need to be doing in order to lead this industry.

 

I will be at ILTA from Sunday, August 23^rd to Thursday, August 27^th and am speaking with Joanne Lane , Ellen Polhamus and  Ruth Hauswirth on Tuesday at 1:30 PM on “The Future of Our Litigation Support Profession: What Lies Ahead?”

 

http://ilta.ebiz.uapps.net/personifyebusiness/EducationalProgram/SessionDetails/tabid/187/Default.aspx?productId=948

 

The answer is easier then you think.

 

David Cowen

Executive Search & Market Analysis

“We Know The Right People...  Right Now”

www.cowengroup.com

www.opportunityknocksblog.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

How time flies when you’re not writing a blog… It’s been two months since my last post, and it feels good to be back in the saddle.

As many of you know, The Cowen Group has been hosting regular Breakfast Roundtables in New York City that bring together top E-Discovery professionals and attorneys from the corporate and AmLaw space to discuss the evolution of critical trends in the industry.

Now more than ever, it is important for E-Discovery professionals to stay connected and build meaningful relationships with one another. To that end, we have expanded our Thought Leadership Breakfast series to Washington, D.C., Houston, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles – if you are in one of these cities and would like to know more about the Breakfast Roundtables, shoot me an email.

On that note, we just concluded our New York City Breakfast Roundtable on Early Case Assessment: Analyzing Today’s Tools. Thank you to our participants, and particularly to our Panelists, Patrick Oot, Glen McFarlane, Ronke Ekwensi, Mike Merlo, and Alysia Solow.

Our next Breakfast Roundtable will be in Washington, D.C. this Tuesday, August 4^th.

Glad to be back,

David Cowen

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I thought you might appreciate the below Seths Godins article on growing a customer base…

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/05/deeper-or-wider.html

If you want to grow the size of your customer base, you need to confront the buffet dilemma.

Any decent buffet has foods that please 85% of the population. Meats, cheeses, potatoes... the typical fare.

Once your business hits a natural plateau, it’s tempting to invest in getting more people to come. And what most buffets do is double down. Now, they have bacon, plus they have beans with bacon and turkey-wrapped bacon. Now, instead of one chocolate cake, they have three.

This is essentially useless. You haven’t done anything to grow your audience. The base might be a little more pleased, but not enough to bring in any new business. And the disenfranchised (the vegans, the weight watchers, the healthy eaters, the kosher crowd) remain unmoved and uninterested. And one person like this out of a party of six is enough to keep all six away.

So, there are two ways to go. Much deeper, or a bit wider…

Deeper would mean a bacon-focused buffet, a dozen bacon dishes, including chocolate-covered bacon. Deeper would mean a chocolate-obsessed dessert bar, ten cakes, fondue, everything.

Deeper gets you people willing to drive across town to visit you. It’s remarkable. It’s not like every other buffet but a little bit bigger. It’s insanely over the top. People will bully their friends in order to get them to come.

The other choice is wider. Instead of adding a handful of dishes that mildly please the people you already have, why not add brown rice and tofu and vegetarian chili? Now you’ve opened the doors to that last 15%.

This thinking isn’t available only to buffet owners. It works for summer camps. Resorts. Conference centers. Spiritual institutions [and E-Discovery firms]. It works for any business that seeks to attract customers that come in groups where people have different wants and needs.

 

.....Do you have the right talent in place to execute your growth strategy?

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The AmLaw Litigation Support/E-Discovery job market is poised for a rebound in the later part of 2009, which will extend through 2010. However, many law firms anticipate building flexibility into their hiring plans by relying heavily on Temp-to-Perm employees.

When surveying over 100 Litigation Support and Human Resource Managers, we found that 42% of the AmLaw100 report an increase in hours worked since Q2 2008. As a result, 31% anticipate adding temporary staff within the next 6 months. In the AmLaw Top 50, 70% anticipate adding temporary staff within 6 months. For the most part, permanent hires in the AmLaw 100 remain flat.

These trends reinforce a shift in the market that The Cowen Group has observed internally: permanent employees at AmLaw200 and AmLaw300 firms are expressing interest in temporary positions within the AmLaw Top 50. They see the transition from permanent to temp-to-perm as a chance to at with the best-and-brightest – firms which have best-in-breed technologies and the largest, most complex cases.

If you would like to receive our full report on these, and other emerging trends in the E-Discovery job market, please email David@CowenGroup.com.

The Cowen Group provides an inside-out look at the E-Discovery space by conducting quarterly surveys into salary, hiring and other critical trends within the AmLaw, Corporate, and Vendor spaces. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I just wanted to write a quick thank you blog to Martha Mazzone, Patrick Oot, David Boyhan, Warren Solow and everyone who participated in our Breakfast Roundtable on Tuesday morning, April 21^st to our discuss Measuring and Evaluating In-House E-Discovery Legal Spend.

Our preliminary Critical Trends Survey on the subject came back with some interesting facts:

• 90% of Corporate E-Discovery managers are not able to track the details of their E-Discovery budget.
• Only 30% of Corporate E-Discovery managers are able to calculate their E-Discovery legal spend budget. For the rest, legal spend is simply a line on their cost sheet.
• While 58% of Corporate E-Discovery managers currently have E-Discovery hosting In-House, another 24% intend on doing so within the next year.
• While 33% of Corporate E-Discovery managers currently have E-Discovery processing In-House, another 31% intend on doing so within the next year.
• More Corporate E-Discovery managers have advanced degrees (65%) than do AmLaw200 E-Discovery managers (18%).

Our next Breakfast Roundtable will be held June 9^th, where we will discuss How to Compare and Contrast Early Case Assessment Tools and Offerings.

If you would like a copy of this report, or if you would like to join the June 9^th dialogue by taking our preliminary survey, email William@CowenGroup.com. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I love spring conferences…. I am particularly looking forward to the IQPC conference in San Francisco, April 26^th through April 30^th and the Litigation Support Today Leadership Conference in Washington D.C., May 6^th through May 8^th.

Although, as excited as I am to see David Cohen and Dean Gonsowksi discuss  Cutting Costs & Improving Outcomes  at IQPC, I must admit that I am even more excited about delivering my two sessions in Washington. After four years sitting in the audience, Art Buckwalter from Litigation Support Today has offered me the opportunity to deliver two sessions:

1.      Interviewing for the Job You Want - What’s hot and what’s not…. How to prepare for an interview by knowing your strengths and being prepared to answer the hard questions.

2.      What’s Next: New and Emerging Career Opportunities in Litigation Support and E-Discovery - The E-Discovery job market has evolved substantially in the past 6-8 months. I will be tracking the different career opportunities in the corporate, AmLaw and vendor spaces, and discussing the skills you need to fill them, now – and in the future.

I am in the process of finalizing both presentations, and would love some input from the community. If there is something specific you’d like addressed in these two sessions, drop me a line and I will do my best to incorporate your thoughts/questions.

Have a great weekend! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Cowen Group will be hosting a panel discussion on
Corporate E-discovery – An In-House Point of View
Tuesday, February 24 in New York City

As expenses mount and the risks for failing to comply with eDiscovery demands have grown, more companies are bringing eDiscovery in-house. However, doing so is not an easy process. A legal department must have the budget, the caseload and personnel with expertise to justify the process.

Our panel will discuss:

• Specific trends, tools and processes they are employing at 3 of the nation's top in-house eDiscovery departments.
• Onshore versus offshore solutions.
• The economic downturn -- and its impact on in-house eDiscovery.
• Three things a corporation must do prior to bringing eDiscovery in-house.

Stay tuned for Wednesday's blog with the results of this roundtable discussion and the most excellent recipe for pancakes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Of the 2100 layoffs since January 2009, less than 3% (60) have impacted E-Discovery and Litigation Support professionals. See Layoff Tracker for specific details.

Here's a quick overview of how we see E-Discovery staffing in the first quarter...

#1 - Most AmLaw 200 firms are holding off on permanent staffing.  This will increase the demand for contract employees and outside vendors for their E-Discovery work.

#2 - Corporate E-Discovery headcount remains flat as they continue to wrestle with budget cuts, layoffs and in-house E-Discovery planning. This should be good news for vendors and outside counsel.

#3 - Vendors are proactively and in some cases aggressively looking for talented sales and client services professionals. Good news for talented individuals that find themselves with a shaky firm.

The use of contract and temporary workers is typical during recessionary periods. If permanent staff cuts go deeper then contract staffing and outsourcing will continue to increase.

While this is not great news if you've been laid off it does offer firms the opportunity to hire experienced talent that is highly motivated and affordable.

I would like to continue gathering valid data points on staffing trends in the litigation support and E-Discovery community. But for this I need your help.

I'm particularly interested in hearing from Human Resource Managers and decision-makers at firms that have had layoffs and/or are using contract staff to fill in the gaps left by layoffs.

Please get in touch with me by e-mail at david@cowengroup.com. All contacts and communications will be kept confidential. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

During recessionary periods the use of contract and temporary workers increase dramatically.

If you are looking for top talent that is availble immediately take a look at these 2 Litigation Support professionals that are ready for assignments...

 

Candidate #1: 

Litigation Support Analyst - $60/HR                                       

- Two years within an AmLaw 50 and 3+ years with a Tier-A Service Provider

- Designs and maintains Concordance, IPRO, Access and LiveNote databases.

- Utilizes Discover-e for native file and PST/TIFF conversions.

- Trains attorneys and paralegals on document review systems.

- Creates trial presentations and performs audio/video conversions.

- Serves as the main point of contact for vendors tasked with ESI processing/production.

FULL RESUME CLICK HERE

 

Candidate #2:

EDiscovery Litigation Support Specialist - $45/HR

-  Processes over 600GB of data.

-  Produces and runs small production in house using IPRO and LAW.

-  Manages all users and partitions the review workload throughout the firm's paralegal staff.

-  Trains attorney and paralegal on Concordance and LAW 5.0.

-  Manages all users and partitioned the review workload throughout the firm's paralegal staff.

FULL RESUME CLICK HERE

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Legal Layoffs - 800 Law Firm Jobs Lost in One Day

Almost 800 associates and legal staff nationwide returned home jobless Thursday after eight firms conducted mass layoffs, citing an unprecedented downturn in demand.

And the bloodletting is likely to continue. See Layoff Tracker for specific details.

Despite these record layoffs, contract staffing is actually on the rise. A recent poll by The Cowen Group revealed that demand for temporary Litigation Support, Paralegals and Contract Attorneys rose 15% in the month of January. Especially at AmLaw 200 firms with large complex litigation departments.

The use of contract and temporary workers is typical during recessionary periods and as these staff cuts go deeper contract staffing will continue to rise.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What do Lance Armstong, CNN Breaking News, and President Obama have in common…drum roll please….Twitter!

If you are one of the many people out there who are looking to learn more about Twitter…Jeremiah Owtang has an easy way of explaining the benefits of using this new technology in the professional sphere.

Check out his article on How to get started on Twitter and when you’re done registering come follow me and join the conversation.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What did I see & hear at LegalTech 2009...

#1- Evolution- There is an evolving/expanding role for certified records managers with a deep understanding of information technology and E-Discovery. I see the demand for this talent beginning to escalate. If demand exceeds supply then we will see corresponding salary increases.

#2- Expansion & Retention - E-Discovery staffing and hiring will remain steady to strong for 2009:

• Hiring is strongest amongst the AmLaw 200.
• While 10% of firms are downsizing their litigation support practice group… Most are actively recruiting for experienced talent or holding steady.
• All in all staffing and recruiting for E-Discovery talent within law firms will remain steady and possibly grow in 2009.

#3-Corporate - There is a great misconception about the corporate space and how it relates to litigation support and E-Discovery staffing -

Not all corporations are created equal... each corporations E-Discovery needs are different, their commitment to in-house E-Discovery is different, there E-Discovery litigation support maturity is different and each industry has different stakeholders and needs…. therefore driving a different level of commitment to establishing, building and maintaining an in-house E-Discovery practice group. (Sloppy run on paragraph but you get the idea).

Corporate will continue to lurch along in its effort to address their need for talent in this evolving role… thereby creating new positions and headcount.

#4- Vendors- The vendor market is overbuilt by approximately 10%. This will cause us to see continuing and significant downsizing in this space across all job categories – management and non-management alike - until the industry right-sizes itself… So expect the strong to get stronger and the weak to merge or leave the scene.

#5- Twitter- Don't ask me how or why it works but there is a buzz, I have an account, and I'm looking into it.

I will be attending the New York regional ARMA conference on February 11 and will continue to let you know my thoughts about this evolving role/career path of records manager in E-Discovery space… so stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

The most prevalent story that I'm hearing at LegalTech 2009 is that E-Discovery is truly beginning to move left…something that Cheryl McKinnon does a great job of explaining in this article “Think Left”.

The Records Manager role is evolving into a role called Manager/Director of Information Compliance. Certified Records Managers with deep IT knowledge and an understanding of E-discovery will be a very hot career in 2009.

If the demand for Managers of Information Compliance takes off like it did for Litigation Support Managers back in 2004 and 2005 I expect salaries to jump 20% this year and 25% next year.

Now that's "News You Can Use"...See you at ARMA in October.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

This year’s biggest merger has been between K&L Gates with Kennedy Covington. And now the current buzz surrounds a possible merger between Winston & Strawn and Heller Ehrman. 

The numbers don’t lie. So far there have been 26 new law firm mergers and acquisitions reported in the past three months.   Not to mention the 18 we saw in the first quarter of the year. Compared to last years 27 at this point – 2008 looks to add to that total. 

What does this mean to you and your career? Does this pace of merger activity reduce career opportunities? How does this affect you and your role in an organization?

If history is any indication of what will happen, there should be a consolidation and reduction in staff. 

But this is eDiscovery/Lit Support. The war for talent continues to be fierce…. And I do not see a reduction forthcoming.

There are over 250 open positions for eDiscovery professionals in Corporate, Vendor, and AmLaw 200 Law Firms. 

It’s a buyers market. 

I would hate to be selling a house in this market. But if you have talent and experience in eDiscovery – it’s your kind of market.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Do you know what I enjoy about conferences? It’s the interaction that occurs. It’s being able to speak face-to-face with other people with a passion for the business. It’s sitting in on sessions presented by thought leaders in the industry. 

I make it routine to attend all the trade conferences to further my understanding of the space and what trends to be aware of. Like last year, The Cowen Group hosted a Pre Legal Tech dinner Wednesday night. I’d like to extend a thank you to all that attended our soiree. The discussion on how to manage, train and retain top talent was very thought provoking.

Today I’ll be attending the practice management track and look forward to hearing George Rudoy, Joy Murao, Jim McKenna and Mary Panneta discuss the hot trends and new directions that practice technology is taking.

With the rate at which the lit support community is expanding, it’s exciting to be sitting in the front row. The increased demand for trained professionals, informed talent and the lack of a homogenous curriculum opens the space for a lot of change and opportunity. It definitely keeps me on the edge of my seat.

If you happen to be here in L.A. for Legal Tech West, please say hello or drop me a line. We can find some time to get a coffee and exchange ideas. If not, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the conference. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I highly recommend reading Monica Bay’s article, “Can You Adapt?,” in the June issue Law Technology News.  

I too am seeing more of this new breed of techno/e-discovery lawyer.

Many firms have them in place or are looking to hire or develop them and they are discussed at every conference I attend.

Many people see this growing role of staff attorneys and techno-lawyers in litigation support as a threat or source of irritation.

I don’t.

It’s not us versus them. It’s not a competition for visibility within the firm.

It’s evolution, not revolution.

Paralegal, IT or lawyer - there’s plenty of room for everyone.  

As the profession evolves and litigation support becomes more complex and sophisticated, the techno-lawyer can play a valuable role in practice support leadership. Lawyers understand lawyers.  They understand the internal and external clients being served, the specifics of the case and the strategies and goals to be accomplished.  They understand the WHY of what is needed.

Today’s litigation support departments are like chocolate chip cookies.  There are countless ways to make them, depending on what ingredients you have in the house.  How many chips, how much butter, a preference for crispy or chewy and, dare I say it, nuts?  Each batch is different.

Directors and Managers need to evaluate their needs and internal resources to create strong and diverse teams.  They must determine who has the skills as well as the passion, motivation and intellectual curiosity to step into litigation support roles.  A lawyer may be the perfect fit for your team, depending on:

·        The culture of your firm;

·        The nature of your clients;

·        The depth and complexity of the matter;

·        The maturity of the department;  and

·        The relationships with IT.

There are many ways to make a chocolate chip cookie.

I like mine chewy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

With only 5 full months of 2008 on the books, the list of casualties from the slowing economy is growing.  The Department of Labor released statistics Friday revealing that the legal sector lost 1,100 jobs in the month of May.  These figures, when added to the 1,900 losses from April, indicate a volatile job market.

Despite this sharp reduction in workforce, I continue to see solid growth and demand in e-discovery and litigation support across the AmLaw 200. 

 The Cowen Group conducted a quick poll on Monday of litigation support/e-discovery hiring trends among 20 global law firms.  Our poll revealed the following:

•            65% are aggressively hiring litigation support staff.
•            20% are on plan and will continue to staff.
•            15% are cautious and/or scaling back.

These results are precisely what I saw last year at this time. Indicating healthy hiring activity in the litigation support space despite the sluggish economy.

Although several clients acknowledged a decline in business and case loads, they were quick to point out that the increase in size, scope and complexity of cases were keeping their headcounts high.

Several of the firms polled responded that they were adding services and staff to their litigation support practices this year. 

There’s nothing like the DOJ, SEC, FBI and a sub-prime meltdown to give one a sense of job security. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Offshoring – the practice of sending legal work to low-wage markets overseas – may have just hit a major roadblock.

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hello all. After my 18 month hiatus, I am excited to be contributing my thoughts on the dynamics that shape our work in the ever-evolving litigation support/eDiscovery space.

My goal--with the new launch of this blog--is to create a meaningful, open platform to discuss career trends, business opportunities, management trends, and strategies for achieving professional success in the eDiscovery.

I invite you to bookmark this blog, visit frequently and liberally contribute your insights, opinions and professional experiences. I look forward to our collaborative and positive exchange of ideas in this free and open space.

Have a topic suggestion? Drop me a line!

You'll find me here once a week. So, buckle your seat belt, bring a colleague and meet me here. We are in for hell of a ride this year.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New York's Dewey Ballantine and San Francisco's Orrick, Herrington &amp; Sutcliffe are discussing a possible merger, the leaders of both firms confirmed Monday. </p>

It remains unclear how far the discussions have advanced, but if a merger is completed, the combined firm would have more than 1,200 lawyers and hit nearly $1 billion in revenues, based on the most recent Am Law 100.

There is much that needs to be discussed so it is still premature to speculate on a potential outcome at this time," said Morton Pierce, chairman of Dewey Ballantine's management and executive committees. "I will say that I am intrigued by the possibilities to create one of the largest and most dynamic firms in the marketplace."

With the ever increasing complexity of Litigation and global clients demanding more full service and fee containment, the Dewey-Orrick merger (New York Times Online- Registration Required) is a natural.

As are the several others I am hearing about.

What does it mean for your career? Increased chaos, greater competition, and promotable opportunities for those that can provide leadership and build meaningful relationships with key partners, co–workers, and department heads

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For years my friends and colleagues have told me that the Europeans just do not sue and litigate like American firms. And I agreed. But that is changing FAST & FURIOUSLY. The Volvo - Mont Blanc incident may have opened the Pandora's box of US style product liability litigation. And there is no return.

In Europe, "product liability claims are [filed] more or less never," says Lars Lidman, general counsel at AB Volvo's Volvo Trucks division in Gothenburg, Sweden. But given the scale of the Mont Blanc disaster, the international news coverage and the number of nationalities involved, Lidman knew this case would be different. After two rounds of court-ordered investigations, Volvo, the Italian and French tunnel operating companies and a dozen individuals faced two rounds of court-appointed investigations and a criminal trial for manslaughter in France. In July 2005 nine individuals and three tunnel operating companies were convicted; of the corporate defendants, only Volvo was acquitted.

"It's a major, major case. It's the first big [product liability] case we've had in Europe," says Lidman. Class actions, in the American sense, don't yet exist in Europe, but the number of parties and the money at stake here give the Mont Blanc litigation a distinctly American flavor. "This case, you could say it is like a class action," says Lidman. Governments across Europe are learning, like Lidman, that the desire to sue en masse is, like most things, not uniquely American.

Europe is hardly in danger of becoming known as Madison County East. Significant barriers to class actions remain. But those barriers are coming down fast and furiously, and for good. Major cases are now pending in Italy and France, and major firms like Parmalat, Microsoft, Boeing, Astra Zeneca, and Ivanna are queuing up to enlist US talent in the litigation wars that are beginning to rage all over Europe.

For continuing coverage including the names of key litigants and issues in the news, watch this space."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Large corporations have been getting some frustrating legal advice lately, and paying for it dearly, in budget overruns, legal sanctions and worse.

Now the Fortune 500 are getting into the driver's seat. They're going shopping for legal services they can really use in a digital world, at prices that will keep them coming back. Legal tech vendors nMatrix, ZANTAZ et al now offer products that corporations are buying and taking home, reclaiming in-house control of EDD in complex litigation matters like class actions and patent litigation (can you spell MDL?). It's an accelerating trend, and power corporations Pfizer, Citigroup and Johnson & Johnson are leading the way.

If you're a litigation support professional, this is good news for you. Because when corporate shoppers get their shiny new solutions home, they still need experienced lit support professionals to put it all together. So the Fortune 500 are also shopping for you.

But that's only the half of it. Outside counsel now has to deliver lit support skills and experience to serve the rapidly changing needs of established clients. But venerable firms that have served Fortune 500 companies for the last century or so don't yet have your skills on hand. So law firms are shopping for you too.

I you're a lit support pro, in-house or outside, this trend is your seller's market.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When large corporations go shopping for litigation support, they are likely to be both informed consumers and tough customers. And due to ever increasing costs in lit support and EDD, large corporations are shopping the market like a President's Day clearance sale.

When large corporations go shopping for litigation support, they are likely to be both informed consumers and tough customers. And due to ever increasing costs in lit support and EDD, large corporations are shopping the market like a President's Day clearance sale.

David Levy, of Fulbright & Jaworski, writes that among Fortune 500 companies surveyed last year, cost-effectiveness trumped all other criteria for measuring the efficacy of legal resources, whether in-house or outsourced. Seems the budget-minded corporate client, like any cagey consumer, wants bang for the buck -- up-to-date technology and services, effectively matched to purpose, at fair market rates.

And why not? With the current incursion of technology into courts, corporate litigation and law firms, corporate clients are discovering a leverage that once belonged only to the arcane inner sanctum of outside counsel -- a shift that could potentially change the lawyer-client relationship forever. Electronic data management is fast leveling the field, replacing both the hand-delivered redwell and the beleaguered associate. But in complex class actions, multi-district or patent litigation matters, electronic archives can become overwhelming -- huge, and fraught with legal, ethical, and financial pitfalls for the lit support greenhorn. Because without experienced, methodical analysis of requirements and resources, all hell can break loose.

In the EDD marketplace, where IT whiz-kids once squared off against legal top-guns, it turns out that real expertise now requires a cooperative new hybrid of tech savvy and law firm experience. In fact, for the moment, law firms and their Fortune 500 clients are shopping the same market, and are facing the same dilemma: how to find the lit support experts -- whether in-house or outsourced -- who really know the secrets of EDD. In-house lit support directors, vendors, outside counsel, law firm non-legals--they're all in this market. And when traditional law firms lack the required EDD technology and/or experience, their clients will not hesitate to go shopping.

Next week, Chapter 2. "The Fortune 500 Go Shopping: Why this is good news for you, if you are in Lit Support"

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"Whatever the next new new thing turns out to be," reported The American Lawyer, "for the practice that launches New York's next Latham-like success story -- it will help to have the right connections."

That's not news to us. California-based Latham & Watkins, damsel at the Manhattan dance twenty years ago, has since risen to legal New York's top tier, by sticking to a few basic best practices. But it's getting harder and harder to come to New York, say law firms who've tried it lately -- not because the Big Apple's lost any of its cachet, both to serve existing clients and to attract new ones.

New York is still the financial capital of the world and a major center of commercial litigation, with the appeal to foreign clients essential for any firm's global ambitions. Some would-be contenders ultimately withdraw, sadder but wiser. Others, like Latham & Watkins, hang in for a big payoff, whatever it takes -- and however long. So what does it take?

In a recent article, The American Lawyer boiled it down to four durable basics -- laser focus, client base, long-range vision, and oh yeah, luck. But "what it takes", in the current business of law firms, has changed in some key respects. For one thing, outside firms once routinely mined New York's lode of midsized law firms for talent and a local presence, complete with lucrative client lists. But that once-rich lode of midsized law firms is pretty much played out, so client lists are harder to acquire, and not by merger alone. Alternatively, Kirkland & Ellis arrived in 1990 with ten homegrown lawyers and an active group of private equity clients. So the firm was able to "stick to the knitting," says Kirkland's Kirk Radke, "stick to what we're very good at."

But some firms never get momentum in New York because of the intense competition, both for clients and for talent. And the battle for business is now being fought in the lateral market. "If you're coming to New York with economics that don't match the firms already in New York," says Bradford Hildebrandt of Hildebrandt International, "then you're going to have trouble recruiting talent." So is it too late to make it in New York? "Absolutely not," says Kenneth Bezozo, who came from Dallas in 2004 to open Haynes and Boone's Manhattan office. But it's now more important than ever to have the map -- and the sherpa who knows his way around critical "on the ground" matters. Issues like name recognition, professional critical mass, unique practice areas, local market expertise. Moreover, per-lawyer costs in New York are higher than in a firm's other offices, so it's crucial to match the right people to the right task.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This month Boston-based Bingham McCutchen will acquire Washington D.C. law firm Swidler Berlin, reports Legal Times.

This is big. Big firm, big reputation. Big clients, big bucks. Big systems.

Big headaches. 850-lawyer Bingham will more than triple its 55-lawyer D.C. office, adding three key practice groups and creating an instant Washington presence. With 11 offices on both coasts, Bingham has soared up the AmLaw rankings from No. 81 in 1999 to No. 26 in 2005, with no less than five successful mergers. But Swidler was one of D.C.'s last best midsize firms. Says Bingham

Chairman Jay Zimmerman, "there are fewer and fewer [merger] opportunities available in D.C.," echoing a lament heard recently around the Big Apple.

Litigation support, anyone? The integration of complex litigations and systems often proves to be a merged firm's thorniest challange, although Zimmerman says, "Every time we get a little better at it."

They have to. Swidler itself is an object case. Before its 1998 merger with New York's 60-lawyer Shereff, Friedman, Hoffman & Goodman, Swidler was known as an aggressive and highly profitable firm. But the New York lawyers' corporate practice never meshed with Swidler's focus and led to a steady bleeding of key partners, a shopping excursion, and ultimately the acquisition by Bingham.

Now Bingham will face many of the same challenges that made Swidler vulnerable. Technology has exploded exponentially since 1999, when Bingham made 81 on the AmLaw 100, and many a firm has been surprised by arcane cyber-mysteries like E-discovery.

Litigation support and staffing has never been a better investment. Because integration of systems isn't just about hardware.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Strategic insight and good lawyering coupled with SUPERIOR LITIGATION SUPPORT WINS Paul Weiss 2006 Litigation Department of the Year.

Who is Paul Weiss? It begins with the star-studded client list of Simon Rifkind, the retired federal judge who represented such clients as Jacqueline Onassis, William O. Douglas, Jane Fonda and a plethora of major corporations. Rifkind's mantle was assumed by Arthur Liman. With his public service credentials -- a former federal prosecutor, he headed the Attica prison uprising investigation and the Senate Iran-Contra hearings -- and his unlikely charisma, Liman was a towering presence at the firm. He was also the litigation department's biggest rainmaker, the foundation of the firm's relationships with such key clients as Viacom Inc. and Time Warner Inc. Take a look at American Lawyer 's very worthwhile read on who Paul, Weiss is -- and how it achieved its current status.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Complete disclosure - recent changes to the Civil Procedure Rules in the UK

From casual e-mails to information on your iPod, electronic data can now be required as court evidence. Electronic disclosure is set to become a major issue for UK law firms, following the changes to the Practice Direction under Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in October.

The changes will require a much more rigorous approach to the way electronic documents are created, stored, searched and retrieved. Many of the "smoking gun" communications that can undermine the strength of a case tend to start life as an electronic document. Casual or instinctive responses by e-mail to a problem with another contracting party, a regulator or even an employee can often be highly significant in the context of formal legal proceedings perhaps months or years down the line. With the scope of electronic disclosure as it now stands, there is an increased likelihood these kinds of documents will see the light of day in court. Regulatory agencies, such as the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading, are also becoming increasingly sophisticated and demanding in the information they will seek in the course of an investigation, as well as in the timeframe for its production. Lengthy timescales for collation and review of documents may no longer be feasible when they are stored electronically and can be searched easily.

Electronic documents

The new rules impose increased obligations on businesses to consider the availability and relevance of electronic documents at the earliest stages of litigation. They now expressly refer to documents stored on servers and back-up systems, and will encompass documents that have apparently been "deleted", but which can be recovered by a forensic expert.
Metadata can be altered irrevocably if the electronic document is handled incorrectly. Even the simple action of clicking onto a document can alter its meta-data.

Scale of the disclosure process -- The new regulations have dramatically increased the scale of the disclosure process for a business involved in litigation. The volume and variety of electronic materials produced by businesses continues to increase significantly year-on-year. It has been estimated 93% of corporate documents are created, viewed and stored electronically but 70% of those documents never migrate to paper. The rules state it may be reasonable to search some or all of a party's electronic storage systems -- this could mean a Complete trawl, not only of the obvious (PCs, servers and back-up systems), but also mobile phones, BlackBerries, laptops, electronic notebooks and even iPods. A party may have to verify that they have searched all mail, document, calendar, spreadsheet, graphic and presentation files and webbased applications.

The revised Practice Direction to Part 31 requires parties to discuss, at the outset of the litigation and where possible prior to the first case management conference, issues that may arise relating to the disclosure of electronic documents. They should provide information about the categories of electronic documents they possess, the systems, devices and media on which they may be stored, and the storage and document retention arrangements they have made. Parties must also cooperate at an early stage as to the format in which electronic documents will be provided. It is therefore crucial for lawyers to be familiar with their clients' IT systems and processes for document management. Those who choose to ignore this reality risk overlooking vital evidence and attracting sanctions.

Practical steps -
Reviewing back-up tapes is often considered the most fertile source of information in an evidence-gathering exercise. Indeed, in the "headline" case of Zubulake v UBS Warburg, one issue was whether 95 potentially relevant back-up tapes (that is, potentially more than 300 million pages) should be reviewed.

Sophisticated technology now exists for electronic documents to be filtered for relevance and reduced to a manageable review set integrated with paper documents in a single online document repository. These online databases also provide reviewers with the ability to further search through and filter the documents, place electronic "post-it" notes and highlight sections on the documents, categorise documents as relevant or privileged and view electronic documents in their native file formats. All reviewers effectively need for an online review is an internet connection. When very large volumes of data need to be reviewed, there is almost no other solution to this type of online repository in terms of both storage capacity and review functionality required.

It may increasingly become the case that parties that could use more sophisticated techniques for managing and disclosing their electronic documents, and fail to do so, will find themselves at a disadvantage in a dispute.
As more than two-thirds of UK businesses have been embroiled in litigation during the past year, this is a risk that few can afford to take.

Jonathon Crook is a litigation partner and Jonathan Tardif is a litigation associate at Eversheds. Andrew Szczech is an electronic evidence consultant at electronic and paper-based evidence services provider Kroll Ontrack.
Author: Jonathon Crook, Jonathan Tardif, Andrew Szczech
Source: Legal Week - 17/11/2005

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sullivan & Cromwell Opens Bonus Season for Associates Range of $30,000 to $50,000 mirrors last year's compensation.

Though Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the nation's most profitable firm, stands apart with first-year bonuses usually starting at $50,000, other leading New York firms like Sullivan & Cromwell;

Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and a handful of others have generally sought parity in terms of associate pay, especially at the junior levels. The usually swift but occasionally sloppy market alignment results from such firms' fear of being disadvantaged in recruiting top graduates from leading law schools.

In the past, the competition included both base salary, which increased from $85,000 to $125,000 for first-years between 1997 and 2000, and bonuses, which also peaked in 2000 at $40,000 for first-years and $100,000 for senior associates.

Since then, however, New York firms, most of which still pay a first-year base of $125,000, have shown a marked preference for discretionary bonuses over salary increases. Though Skadden raised its first-year salaries to $140,000 in 2000, it has since paid a correspondingly lower bonus, so its overall associate compensation is in line with that of its New York rivals.

Likewise, the September announcement of first-year salary hikes to $135,000 by two Los Angeles litigation boutiques, Irell & Manella and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, has engendered no reaction among New York firms.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks