Lawyer huh! who the hell are you?

A legal-science fiction enlightening electronic discovery of the extinction of Legal Profession. It comes in the form of a news article. Asia being the most developed region (in 2080) issues directives to formally announce the end of Law as a Profession. This was widely protested by legal deintus (a group representing phoenix of legal profession) and supported by Ex-metic (a group representing victims of legal vandalism and enjoying the end of Legal Eagle.) Azure committee, ethnodicy rare (a branch of ethnology that studies comparative legal systems) was appointed and given access to global ESI (Electronically stored information) repository to recommend the extinction of lawyer. This is how the article goes:-

Committee report suggests 'Game Over'.

May 18, 2080. Asian News Services. Amidst huge protests and allegations of biasness from deintus the Committee today submitted its report on 'Lawyer....who are they?' It has made a recommendation to formally announce the extinction of the Legal Profession. Inter alia this would mean that law will lose recognition as a degree course and high-end Legal Services Programming would be the only subject left to be taught and researched. The Ex-metic, rejoiced by the recommendations, have asked the Administration to execute it with immediate effect. "We can no longer carry this backlog of shackles which ended twenty years back in 2060", exults an Ex-metic supporter. "Our administrators have succumbed before the mighty software companies", states a frustrated deintus.

The Committee, appointed last month, has submitted its detailed report on the global study of legal services from 1960 to 2060 in four different phases (the last phase being residuary phase). A brief synopsis of the Committee's report is as under:-

1960 – 1991 First Phase. (LAW AS A TRADITION). Since inception (time immemorial) till the late 1980's law was widely considered to be the art of conducting cases in courts, both by arguments and by the manner of proving evidences to convince the court or jury, as the case may be. Things were traditional, paper filings, face to face interactions with client, voluminous books of precedents, typewritten court reporting's, a lot of efforts were required with the developing system.

The first technological advancement was recorded with the publishing industry, who brought in the concept of online databases of legal precedents. Though law originated from the Rome, it was UK and US where it flourished the most, the dominance of Anglo-American Legal System was widely accepted. The concept of law firms, which started in US sometimes around the American Civil War, became popular in US,UK and other developed countries by 1960. However, by the mid of 1960's, there was decline in the income of lawyers as compared to other professionals and it was then that the legal industry's management consultants, started pushing time-based billing as a parameter for determining what practice areas were profitable, a formula for assessing utilization, driving revenue and assessing the big law firms. It worked spectacularly well and rocketed the income of lawyers (at least for those in private practice in big firms). All was well in the legal community, but to the contrary the business community was continuously struggling internally and externally to cut cost and increase margins. Things turned more competitive by the beginning of 1990's, when companies trading globally, shifted their focus, yet again, towards cutting costs to further boost profitability and competitiveness. Companies started introspecting and scrutinizing non-essential business functions that could be performed by Third Parties. Legal Departments of companies, not generating revenues, were obviously pressurized to cut costs. By the end of 1991, large Corporates and Law firms started searching ways to cut cost and increase profits. However, nothing substantial was evidenced within the legal fraternity and it continued to preserve its traditional and conservative sanctity, almost untouched by globalization.

1992 – 2020 Second Phase. (TECHNOLOGY CONVERTED LAW AS A COMMODITY). The Second Phase was of universal recognition that the practice of law and the economic and personal lives of lawyers was on a brink of profound transformation. A realization, that Law is not because of lawyers, but because of 'rule of law.' It was an era of lawyers, inventing their participation in future, or risking being left out with no alternative, a period where lawyers were forced to change their mindset or accept being blindsided. A tenure of legal profession struggling to overcome the blame for selling time by the hour, rather than result by values. A Mantra, that commodities which can be bundled and packaged, can transit seamlessly and can be processed anywhere. Finally, an acceptance that legal profession was not immune from globalization as most of its component were by then, streamlined and channelized. But these were not spontaneous and at times were restrained with humorous contentions.

The beginning of 1992 evidenced the birth of e-mail (electronic mail). E-mail was introduced as a communication tool, used by different people and in different ways, and used just as much, if not more, for personal rather than business reasons. This social networking concept however was subject to wide criticism by the Legal Fraternity. Most lawyers declared they would never use e-mail, as a medium of communication with clients, as it would compromise the Attorney-Client Privilege and peril confidential communications. But surprisingly by the end of 1995, e-mail was widely accepted as a medium of communication by lawyers.

The concept of Business Process Outsourcing though was generally widening, the legal profession was more or less untouched. Outsourcing generally began in the later part of 20^th century, when companies started contracting some of their business aspects to those who provided specialized services. Before outsourcing was implemented companies carried all its activities from raw material to finishing, and manufacturing to marketing, internally. This largely led to wastage of time and resources and quite often deviation from core competencies. To prevent sink and enhance margin, subcontracting of non-core competencies enlarged. The world started flattening and shortening, and by 2020, it was as big as a football ground. Not only all the players were known, their moves could also be predicted and foreseen. The legal fraternity was however, late in jumping into the outsourcing bandwagon. Although the first recorded instance of Legal Process Outsourcing was in 1995 when Bickel and Brewer, a Dallas based law firm, first opened its satellite office in Hyderabad (South India), it best flourished from 2005 to 2020. Although everyone understood the dynamics of change, and the accelerating commoditization of legal work, most were reluctant to accept it. The biggest resistance came from bigger law firms. It was not easy to convince, partners (millionaires) that they must begin to think differently, innovating designs to produce efficiently and effectively. By 2005, technological advancements enabled service providers to make LPO more responsive, useful and acceptable to Corporations and Law Firms in the United States and United Kingdom. 2009-2010 evidenced one of the worst global recession, which further catalyzed offshore outsourcing of legal processes. This was the 'thinking beyond box' time for legal professionals. The initial phase of Legal offshoring began with processing of legal work, which were routinely done, were annoying yet necessary and could easily be outsourced. The initial models of offshore legal outsourcing were TPSP (Third party service providers), Captive, JV, BOT, BTO, FTE and other common incubation and/or customized strategies.

By 2010, the Legal Process Outsourcing industry became more mature and added more services and values. Mainly separation of fatuous and feasible components in legal services and segregation of core competencies from combo bundles triggered more and more outsourcing. Although solo practitioners, small-size and mid-size law firms together as a group constituted 90% of US and UK legal market, they were hardly outsourcing to offshore destinations. 2010-2015 was witness of large scale legal offshore outsourcing, boosted by solo's and small law firms. By 2015, the Industry further transformed and LPO's were segregated into CRMO (Contract Review and Management Outsourcing), LRO (Legal Research Outsourcing), PPO (Patent Process Outsourcing), LSO (Litigation Support outsourcing), BFO (Bankruptcy and Foreclosure Outsourcing), DRO (Document Review Outsourcing) etc. based on their specialized services. Changes were also noticed in the models of Legal Process Outsourcing and concepts like AptCaptive™ were popularly accepted. LPO's converted from 'cost-savers' to 'transformational platforms' between 2010-2015.

Till the late 2018, although the Legal Offshore Outsourcing market was mainly dominated by large companies, there were new trends, which nevertheless, and no more than by 2020, pulsated new embryos. The concepts of Virtual Assistants and firmsourcing amplified incalculable shift from rudimentary practice of business to business, to peer to peer outsourcing. Firmsourcing as a concept meant offshoring of legal processes by one law firm (at posh area with rich clientele) to another law firm (at remote location with penurious clientele), thereby saving smartly the costs but retaining the same quality. The advantages of firm to firm relationship were, first, no formalities and technicalities, thereby creating direct relationship with other law firms, which resulted in a better turn around time (TAT) and, second, since the law firm was not a company (and did not have to manage overhead expenses under different heads), it had opportunity to deliver competitive work product at a highly affordable price. Till 2020, the concepts of Virtual assistants, firmsourcing and AptCaptive™ were universally endorsed. But the role of lawyers was confining day by day because of their biggest competitor, the Software.

2020 – 2060 Third Phase. (SOFTWARE OVERPOWERS LEGAL PROFESSION). The new generation software's were zealously expanding their great empire. Slowly, but definitely by 2030, they had mapped with unprecedented precision, the lawyers work in entirety. Even a layman could easily comprehend and frame motions, petitions, subpoenas, applications, briefs etc. by filling fields in the user-friendly, macro enabled E-filing software's. The web had plethora of legal material available, and legal advice from a lawyer was unmerited. Software's could easily segregate the case laws and arguments that were apposite to a particular issue. Communications being largely made in electronic forms, were readily available and served as reliable evidence. Courts encouraged e-filing portals; these portals suggested litigants to construe their filing documents to be compatible with court rules. Private players came up with unprecedented high-end programming which overpowered law as a profession. The legal profession was withering away like dry leaves of tree, not all at once, but slowly and surely. The one who resisted change, were the most outdated, the one who adapted to the changes, were the most progressive.

Drastically, the decline of lawyers' heralded the beginning to the end of legal profession. By 2040, only one category of lawyers survived. These were called "lex versatilists". Versatilists lawyers applied depth of skill to a progressively widening situation by gaining expertise, competency and dominance from every challenge faced. Continuous learning and growing, converted them into specialty tool, par excellence to software. The extinction of Versatilists, the last preserver of legal profession, around 2060, brought the death of legal profession. Some existing versatilists are now mainly associated with software companies and help them achieve updated version of legal software's.

To wit,

Globalization (Benefit from the economies of scale) -> Outsourcing (do what you can do the best, delegate the rest to Third Party) -> Onshoring (outsourcing within country) -> Farmsourcing (onshoring to lower cost of living location) -> Offshoring (Outsource beyond boundaries) -> Reverse Outsourcing (Asia outsourcing work to erstwhile West) -> Firmsourcing (Firm to Firm outsourcing) -> lex versatilists -> End of legal profession.

Can this be undone?

Trust me you, it can't. We can regret, relish, ridicule or get ready for it, but definitely cannot repress, reprieve, reverse or renounce it.

Indian law on Ethics, Confidentiality and Conflict of interest.

Ethics, Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest are three most bonafide contentions in the mind of a strategist looking for a long-term outsourcing relationship at an offshore location like India. Infact legal profession has always had a cautious approach in wake of any paradigm shift from conservatism to liberalism. When in 1992, the e-mail usage became popular and there were talks about attorney's using e-mail to communicate with their client's, the legal professionals unanimously ruled out such possibilities. The contention throughout the legal profession was that Attorney-Client communication generally involved interchange of confidential data and thus fell within the Attorney-Client privilege doctrine and that being so, attorney's should discourage e-mail communication with their client's as this may not be a secure and confidential means of communication. However, even though at a snails pace the fraternity not only accepted these electronic mails as a secure medium of communications but also started effectively deploying it.

Interestingly, offshore outsourcing, like any other field, is also not devoid of associated risks and impediments. But when the risks are countered head on and the benefits are overpowering enough then the results make histories. The Year 2009 laid a very strong foundation of the LPO industry when some of the biggest names jumped into the offshore outsourcing bandwagon. This trend is projected to continue in 2010, the details of which is discussed in a previous post and is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

In this article we would cover India's answer to any contention regarding Ethics, Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest. Though not directly binding the LPO professionals, the Bar Council of India Rules, to a minimal, are indicative of the fact that India has similar laws governing lawyers on important aspects like Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest. In India, The Advocates Act 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules govern the practice of Law and professional ethics. Let us proceed to analyze the Indian and U.S. provisions on some important aspects of Professional Ethics.

Unauthorized Practice of law

The U.S. Model Rule 5.3 addresses a lawyer's responsibility to supervise non-lawyer assistants thereby placing the ultimate responsibility on the US attorney for any deliverable. Likewise, the Indian Counterpart is bound by a similar provision contained in the Bar Council of India Rules. Part VI – Rules Governing Advocacy – Chapter II – Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette – §IV – Sub Section 37 of the Rules state that, "An advocate shall not permit unauthorized practice of law by any agency". This Rule read along with §29 of The Advocates Act 1961 recognizes advocates duly registered with the Bar Council as the only class of professionals eligible to practice law and bind them with a duty to discourage UPL (Unauthorized practice of law).

Conflict of Interest

The U.S. Model Rule 1.7 outlines the basic rule regarding Conflict Of Interest, namely that "a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interests" i.e. representation of one client would negatively impact simultaneous representation of another client. The Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI – Rules Governing Advocacy – Chapter II – Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette – § IV – Sub Section 14 checks Conflict of Interest in Indian legal profession. The Rule states that "An advocate shall, at the commencement of his engagement and during the continuance thereof, make all such full and frank disclosures to his client relating to his connection with the parties and any interest in or about the controversy as are likely to affect his client's judgment in either engaging him or continuing the engagement".

Confidentiality

In U.S., confidentiality of client's information is governed by Model Rule 1.6, which states, "a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent…………", the elaborate discussion to this is in the Formal Opinion 2006-3 (NY). The NY Opinion recommends US attorneys, looking to outsource their legal process to offshore jurisdiction, to ensure that foreign non-licensed workers understand the heightened duties imposed on attorneys in US (emphasis applied). This makes it all the more necessary and desirable for us to understand the Indian perspective for it. Although, India does not have a legislation specifically dealing with confidentiality of data, nevertheless, the Bar Council of India Rules - Part VI – Rules Governing Advocacy – Chapter II – Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette – § IV – Sub Section 24 states that, "an advocate shall not do anything whereby he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client". This needs to be read together with - Part VI – Rules Governing Advocacy – Chapter II – Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette – § IV – Sub Section 19 – " an advocate shall not act on the instructions of any person other than his client or his authorized agent". The joint reading of both these provisions reflects the Indian Lawyer's statutory requirement to abide with client's confidentiality.

These rules are indicative of the fact that legal profession in India is no less a noble profession. Indian lawyers have similar Professional Ethics and have Disciplinary Committees guiding them. Now when the Indian LPO's hire these lawyers, they undergo formal induction to be trained and made attuned to the different aspects of the LPO functioning. They are further made to acclimatize with the corporate working environment, confidentiality and responsible behavior as mandated. Essentially, these concepts of Confidentiality, Ethics and Conflict Of Interest are instilled within the DNA of these LPO professionals. Even otherwise there is no difference between a US based Contract Attorney and an Offshore Attorney. To illustrate, when a New York based attorney hires an attorney from outside NY but within US to do some portion of his work then by the virtue of definition the latter is not an attorney vis-à-vis the former's jurisdiction. Now the same impediments of Confidentiality, Conflict of Interest and Unauthorized Practice of Law is sustained in retaining a Contract Lawyer as from India as much from outside NY. Inter alia this is a plain and simple view of answering the bonafide contentions in the mind of an individual looking to offshore location like India to outsource his legal processes.

Jobs in Circuit Bench of High Court, Calcutta at Jalpaiguri- 15 Security, Software Developer, Administration, Data Entry Operator.

Recruitment notice for different contractual posts of the Circuit Bench of High Court, Calcutta at Jalpaiguri

Government of West Bengal
Office of the Joint Secretary, Law cum Chairman, Recruitment Committee
4th Floor, G Block,
Writers’ Buildings, Kolkata – 700 001.
Phone No. 033 2254 4547

Applications are invited for recruitment to the following posts of the Circuit Bench of High Court, Calcutta at Jalpaiguri on purely contractual basis as per the eligibility of educational qualification and on the remuneration furnished against each of the post per month (consolidated).

Age as on 01-01-2018 – 18-40 years for General Candidates, 18-43 years for OBC and 18-45
years for SC/ST candidates.

Interested candidates may apply as per the format enclosed.
(Akhilesh Kumar Pandey)
Joint Secretary (Law) cum Chairman,
Recruitment Committee,

Enclosed:
Format of application on separate sheet.
(Marked-A1)

APPLICATION FOR RECRUITMENT TO DIFFERENT POSTS OF

THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA AT JALPAIGURI

To
The Joint Secretary(Law) cum Chairman,
Rec ruitment Committee, 4th Floor, G Block,
Writers’Buildings, Kolkata –700 00 1.

Name of the post applied for ....................................................................

01. Name :: .................................................................

02. Father’s Name :: .................................................................

03. Date of Birth :: .................................................................

04. Educational Qualification
(attach certificate of required qualification) :: .................................................................

05. Age as on 01.01.2018 :: .................................................................

06. Ability to read and write Bengali :: Yes/No (Tick whichever is applicable)

07. Whether the candidate belongs to :: SC/ST/OBC/Genl.(Tick whichever is applicable)

08. Address :: .................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................

09. E-mail Address (mandatory) :: .................................................................

10. Contact No. :: .................................................................
...............................................

S i g n a t u r e
:: Declaration ::
I,............................................................Son/Daughter of .................................................. do hereby declare that the above declaration given by me are true and in case of any of the information on later stage if found to be false my candidature to the post will be summarily rejected.

...............................................

S i g n a t u r e

Date:

Place:

Note: It is to be noted that the applicant on selection shall get the remuneration shown against the said post and shall not get any kind of retirement benefit. The appointment shall be purely on contractual basis which shall be initially for one year and may be renewed year after year at the discretion of the Government.

The application completed in all respect and address to the Chairman, Recruitment Committee along with self attested copies of Certificates in respect of date of birth, educational qualification, caste certificate should reach the office of the Joint Secretary(Law) cum Chairman, Recruitment Committee at 4th Floor, G Block, Writers’ Buildings, Kolkata-1 by Registered Post or may be submitted personally in the office of the Chairman, Recruitment Committee within 10 days from the date of publication of the advertisement.

Incomplete application and application received after due date will be rejected summarily. All original documents are to be produced during the time of interview. Date, venue and time of interview will communicated to the candidates on their respective e-mails.

Document Review : The X-Files revealed

• Introduction.

  Document Review (popularly ‘doc review’) is a task performed by an attorney in anticipation of legal proceedings or during the discovery phase of litigation. Generally, Document Review process is a part of pre-trial discovery procedure (i.e. during the production of evidence/document phase in litigation). The term Document Review includes analyzing, organizing, compiling and summarizing of documents, e-mails, correspondences, contracts, spreadsheets, reports, invoices, memos and attachments in order to make them ready to be filed in court as evidence. Basically, the whole need for Document Review arises when one party to the litigation (requesting party) wishes to have access to other party’s (producing party) documents.

  Document Review requires the attorneys to assess the relevance and/or responsiveness of documents, utilizing the legal expertise to the facts of the case and the issues of law. Later stages of document review (also known as ‘privilege review’ or ‘second level review’) further analyzes documents as privileged (on the basis of attorney-client communication and/or work product) and not privileged. The Privileged Document may be either withheld from production or redacted for content. The actual review of the documents is generally performed electronically (e-mails, files, scanned copies of documents). With proliferation in electronically stored data, an e-discovery first level document review estimates 75% of the average litigation cost.

  ‘Outsourcing of Document Review’ is a term commonly used for delegating all or some portion of the e-discovery process to a LPO company. Primarily like all LPO processes, Document Review involves intelligible analysis of data into useful work product. Data explosion, technological evolution, and the sudden increase in Electronically Stored Information (ESI) has catalyzed steep growth in offshoring Document Review work, as the total quantity of documents has multiplied several times over the years. With more and more streamlining and channelizing of legal processes, a need is felt to cut upon the cost involved in Discovery Processes. Offshore outsourcing to India has emerged as an effective and economical tool for managing Document Review needs. The LPO company conducts searches and evaluates the data (in the form of e-mails, pictures, design or sketch) for Relevance, Confidentiality and Privilege, and related activity such as redaction as per client’s requirements.

  Besides in litigation, Document Review is also performed in matters of regulatory compliance and corporate due diligence.

  Rule 26(f) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) expects the litigating parties to establish methods and formats (such as TIFF, Native file, etc.) for production of ESI (Electronically Stored Information) early on in the litigation.

  The Discovery Process

  During the Document Review process quite often millions of documents have to be searched and identified for

  · Relevancy and responsiveness

  · Confidentiality

  · Privileged /protection such as attorney-client and work product

  · Client defined "key” or "hot" status,

  For large scale Document Review processes the Privilege filters are implemented as soon as documents are received, even before they have been reviewed by an attorney.

  The litigating parties participate in the initial meet and confer sessions to reach an agreement as to the:

  - Identification of all sources of discoverable data,

  - Collection of data (from sources such as tapes, drives, portable storage devices, networks, etc.) and

  - Processing of data (which involves reducing the overall set of data collected by filtering out duplicate or irrelevant files, and determining whether additional data extraction of relevant data may be required).

  Search techniques that software like Attenix has to offer for the purpose of culling are:Keyword, Boolean, proximity and concept searching. Such techniques, as used by the in-house IT dept. of the client, facilitate the process of initial culling of the documents, including de-duplicating, before a LPO company is provided access to them for the purpose of review. Processing also involves maintaining a full copy of all data collected, creating a duplicate set of the culled data for further de-duplication, processing, review, analysis, production and presentation.

  Rule 26(b)(5)(B) of FRCP contains responses to the mistaken release of privileged information. Such a provision of the FRCP enables the producing party to recover back its identified confidential documents which inadvertently were passed on to the requesting party. This provision is called “Claw-Back” clause.

  Data Preservation - When outsourcing to an LPO, the client is most concerned about preserving its metadata. Therefore, all the documents uploaded on to the third party software are not original, but duplicates of the original. Backup tapes of the original documents are also maintained. This is done to maintain a valid chain of custody and authenticity protocols, including full preservation of metadata, ensuring that all ESI is protected against destruction or alteration.

  The Production Process - Typically, the production format is at the option of the requesting party, unless that format can be shown to be unduly burdensome. FRCP 34(b) overtly states that the requesting party may select the method of production, subject to producing party’s objection. However, if the requesting party fails to specify a particular method, the producing party may produce the documents in any electronically searchable form.

  Data Collection - For the purpose of having the documents reviewed, the client (one of the parties to the litigation) may either directly approach the LPO or may come through a third party vendor.

  In case an LPO is approached by the client through a third party vendor which has the software to showcase the documents in the agreed format, such vendor coordinates between the LPO and the client regarding the username, password, license for accessing the software (license ordinarily being accorded keeping in mind the number of reviewers that the LPO company engages for review). Such software acts as a web-based user interface, and facilitates access to offsite database. This whole process is called “customization of software”.

  Data Analysis

  ANALYSIS Process - Before getting down to tagging the documents on the software, it is important for an LPO company to seek summary information from the client regarding the subject-matter of litigation to which the documents to be reviewed pertain. This helps with important early decisions as regards the criteria to be set when assessing the documents for various sensitivity levels.

  REVIEW Process – The review process involves segregating all privileged and confidential documents, and preparing a Privilege Log, say, an excel sheet that LPO reviewers will prepare, describing every document. Even though the tagging of the documents into Hot, Confidential, Not Privileged, Questionable, etc. is done on software’s as part of first pass review, it is advisable to maintain an excel sheet in order to track any later changes in the tagging of certain documents made in consultation with the client.

  After the first pass review is over, the client accesses the documents through the common software provided to both the client and the LPO by the vendor, (such software thus acting as a bridge between the client and the LPO). The client would then express its concern regarding the flagging of the documents after spot checking, and if clients conveys satisfaction about the tagging done so far, the LPO company would begin with privileged review, which entail further sub-categorization of documents tagged as “Confidential” into “Work Product” or “Attorney-Client Privilege” or both (commonly referred to as AC/WP).

  If a document is tagged as “Work-Product”, it means that the document (which may be an e-mail with an attached document proposed to be submitted in the court) contains matter prepared or discussed in anticipation of litigation.

  On the other hand, any correspondence or exchange between the client’s attorney and the client that discusses the progression of the case, the strategy to be followed or any future court dialogues, etc. are flagged as and protected under “Attorney-Client Privilege”.

  Share of offshore document review

  To start with, it was the “e-Discovery Laws” of US Regulations, 2006, which brought to fore the need to find solutions to the problem of non-availability of affordable attorneys and the management of the enormous workload owing to these Regulations. So the obvious answer to this was to outsource these services to a country with relative cost advantage and with no compromise of quality of work.

  India became an answer to this owing to, firstly the similarity between the legal systems of India to that of US & UK. Secondly, due to the availability of inexpensive but highly educated and experienced attorneys and above all, because of its high quality standards of work.

  Offshore Outsourcing of Document Review: - Three important reasons inspiring the growth behind offshore outsourcing of Document Review process to India are:- 1> Cost, 2> Quick TAT(turn around time) and 3> Concentration on other core aspects. Almost all the LPO’s in India and locations like Philippines are into the document review process.

  Cost

  The cost per hour charged by an US Attorney when compared with the Indian Counterpart falls around 1/10^th (as detailed below).

  Quick TAT (turn around time)

  The time difference and the availability of 24x7 support staff fostered outsourcing. The time difference between India and US is 10.5 hrs., this reciprocity of day and night helps documents to be reviewed in a 24 hr. schedule. Also for an attorney heading home, this implies that he could assign the work to an Indian LPO and be assured that the work would be finished, as per his requirements, before he reaches office the next day.

  Concentration on other core aspects

  By outsourcing Document Review like processes, the client can better concentrate on other important and core aspects of litigation thereby saving time and monies.

  Indian Offshore Market

  Document Review and Litigation Support services comprise approximately 35% of the total offshored legal services revenues in India. Indian offshore revenues from legal services were $225 m for the calendar year 2007 and are expected to reach $610 m by the end of 2010. There are over 100 vendors in the Indian market offering document review services.

  India meets many elements necessary to cater the challenges and emerge as a primary destination of global cost-saving workforce. Largest pool of graduates, English as the medium of education, 80,000 law graduates churning out every year from privileged law schools, English Common Law based Indian Legal System and Time Zone advantage areinter-alia the factors inspiring growth in the LPO industry.

  Offshore document review maturity

  The outsourcing industry is all about getting rid of time consuming stuffs. Substandard deliverables is a perception left long behind. In recent times, there has been a rapid acceleration in high end processes like Contract Review and Management and Litigation Support. Indian vendors are satisfactorily delivering briefs, pleadings and motions apart from Legal Research to US/UK based clients. To wit, the Legal Outsourcing industry is in the initial stages of developments. The maturity level however is vertically raisin. From First level review to Second and Privileged Review they are all now within the circumscribing limits of legal outsourcing to India.

  Billing methods

  Typical billing rates

  Hourly rates for Law Firms and associates in US market now begin at more than $200 and average more than $300

  Hourly rates for service providers other than law firm e.g. contract professionals in the US market typically average between $60 and $150.

  Typical hourly rates for offshore attorneys in India range from $10 to $30 for a lawyer.

  For large scale document which involves high level of efficiency and quick Turnaround time Indian outsourcing companies also offer $1 to 1.5 per document.