Attorney jobs increasingly outsourced to India

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: blanghorstI'm not really sure what the point to your post is -- this is happening to many different professions and many of the replacements have dubious qualifications as well. I don't think lawyers deserve any special protection from this happening to their profession unless you extend similar protections to engineers, etc.

The data has many unpalatable ramifications--that's the point.

Our politicians, intellectuals, and the media have been hawking the value of college education for decades. It is impossible to open a newspaper or to turn on the radio or TV without hearing someone say that unemployed people need to go to college and get better skills. These commentators also often bandy about the misleading statistic about how college grads earn much more over their lifetimes than high school graduates.

So, what is this new information telling us? It means that in actuality, instead of telling unemployed factory workers (and people with college education) to retrain and reeducate, it might make more sense to reduce the number of colleges and universities and/or to reduce the total number of student seats in our colleges and universities.

However, facing up to this new reality of the value of a college education will cause a huge political and ideological problem. What would politicians, intellectuals, and the media tell people to do? What would be their advice for the unemployed and underemployed? Just what kind of solutions would they propose to our nation's economic and employment problems? If they can't assuage the masses with education Kool Aid any longer, the masses might start demanding that we end foreign outsourcing, foreign work visas, and mass immigration. They will lie as much as possible to keep from having to do that and thus they will never acknowledge the reality of our situation.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Greenman
When all the manufacturing jobs went overseas no one cared. When all the service/support jobs went overseas no one cared. When all of the hospitals started hiring Indian doctors, no one cared. So why should anyone care about lawyers? I wish they would move all the law schools overseas as well, let the parasites ruin some other country.

No one cares until it's their job that is lost. Heck, we can't even get people to back a national health care system. However, those same people will want the nationalized health care when they lose their health insurance.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Greenman
When all the manufacturing jobs went overseas no one cared. When all the service/support jobs went overseas no one cared. When all of the hospitals started hiring Indian doctors, no one cared. So why should anyone care about lawyers? I wish they would move all the law schools overseas as well, let the parasites ruin some other country.

No one cares until it's their job that is lost. Heck, we can't even get people to back a national health care system. However, those same people will want the nationalized health care when they lose their health insurance.

Bingo.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
NYTimes: Downturn Dims Prospects Even at Top Law Schools

This guy goes to a top-ranked law program at NYU:

After he lost his job as a television reporter two years ago, Derek Fanciullo considered law school, thinking it was a historically sure bet. He took out ?a ferocious amount of debt,? he said ? $210,000, to be exact ? and enrolled last September in the School of Law at New York University.

?It was thought to be this green pasture of stability, a more comfortable life,? said Mr. Fanciullo, who had heard that 90 percent of N.Y.U. law graduates land jobs at firms, and counted on that to repay his loans. ?It was almost written in stone that you?ll end up in a law firm, almost like a birthright.?

The sense of entitlement makes me want to become a conservative.

It's easy for laymen to condemn him, but if we put ourselves in his shoes, why wouldn't he have a sense of entitlement? He just spent gazillions of dollars and huge amounts of time and effort to earn a professional degree--7 years worth of college education. Why should he not reasonably expect to find a solid middle class job if not an upper middle class job? Also, most people in our society do believe that professional degrees are a guarantor of at least solid middle class if not upper middle class prosperity. (Just open any newspaper or turn on the radio or TV; it's hard to do that without hearing about how we need more and better college education and how people will be able to find great jobs with more education.) These views were formed based on data from the Fifties and Sixties when that rule did hold true. You can see it evident in what he said, "historically good bet."

The stakes are extremely high.

If this guy gets a biglaw job, he can escape his debt. If he fails, he's stuck with a mortgage-sized loan that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

If he fails to land an at least solid middle class position, then his life could be fucked up for decades, especially if he has over $100,000 in debt. (Given the cost of undergraduate and law school tuition today, the later of which has become completely insane ($47,000/year at some places and not only at the top schools), coming out with well over $100,000 is not out of the question and might even be probable.)

Just what are we supposed to do with these people who will essentially end up as slaves to their student loan creditors? It's almost as though they will end up living in debtors' prisons without walls--because they adhered to society's dogma about higher education and tried to better themselves--not because they are worthless bums.

Yeah, going to a top law school (NYU is one of the best), putting yourself in major debt that can't be discharged and working your ass off, there is definitely a justifiable sense of entitlement here.

It's not like some sociology major from some rinky dink school expecting a 50k salary right out of college here.

What i think is troubling is that the supply and demand of lawyers coming out of college doesn't match up but they keep on creating more and more law schools (and this was BEFORE the economy tanked)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Well, we've seen this same theme running through American society in two areas--health care and now jobs and the economy. Is it an issue of (1) lack of empathy for other Americans or (2) shortsightedness and vision clouded by American optimism?

 

[stateofbeasley]

Originally posted by: blanghorst
I'm not really sure what the point to your post is -- this is happening to many different professions and many of the replacements have dubious qualifications as well. I don't think lawyers deserve any special protection from this happening to their profession unless you extend similar protections to engineers, etc.

I wouldn't want "special protections" for attorneys. I want a level playing field as far as laws and regulations concerning practice of law.

If Indian attorneys want to practice US law, they should be required to adhere to the same standards as Americans.

Either that, or US states and courts should abolish the requirement that people need a bar license to practice law. In the old days, you didn't need a law degree to sit for the bar exam.

Ideally, the bar exam should be open to anyone who wants to take it. The law schools and $150,000 in debt is a parasitic transactional cost that should be eliminated.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Good ole Steve Forbes probably loves this. He also suggests that the way to cure health care costs in this country is to offshore treatment to countries like India. Stated that you could have a surgery that would cost $150,000 in the US for around $6,000, including airline tickets, in India.

Welcome to McDonalds...would you like a checkup with your fries? I'm a doctor as well as your order taker (thick India voice)!

I'm not sure if you meant for your post to be a joke, but there is already something called medical tourism, which is basically what you described - people traveling overseas to receive treatment for a fraction of the cost compared to the US. Obviously there are quality of care issues, but I'm just saying that it does happen.

 

[Underclocked]

Perhaps this will encourage more young people to train for honorable positions ... and might even lead to a government that is a more representative cross section of professions. It wouldn't hurt to have an honest plumber or carpenter in congress. There are probably hookers with more integrity than many sitting in DC now.

 

[stateofbeasley]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
NYTimes: Downturn Dims Prospects Even at Top Law Schools

This guy goes to a top-ranked law program at NYU:

After he lost his job as a television reporter two years ago, Derek Fanciullo considered law school, thinking it was a historically sure bet. He took out ?a ferocious amount of debt,? he said ? $210,000, to be exact ? and enrolled last September in the School of Law at New York University.

?It was thought to be this green pasture of stability, a more comfortable life,? said Mr. Fanciullo, who had heard that 90 percent of N.Y.U. law graduates land jobs at firms, and counted on that to repay his loans. ?It was almost written in stone that you?ll end up in a law firm, almost like a birthright.?

The sense of entitlement makes me want to become a conservative.

It's easy for laymen to condemn him, but if we put ourselves in his shoes, why wouldn't he have a sense of entitlement? He just spent gazillions of dollars and huge amounts of time and effort to earn a professional degree--7 years worth of college education. Why should he not reasonably expect to find a solid middle class job if not an upper middle class job? Also, most people in our society do believe that professional degrees are a guarantor of at least solid middle class if not upper middle class prosperity. (Just open any newspaper or turn on the radio or TV; it's hard to do that without hearing about how we need more and better college education and how people will be able to find great jobs with more education.) These views were formed based on data from the Fifties and Sixties when that rule did hold true. You can see it evident in what he said, "historically good bet."

The stakes are extremely high.

If this guy gets a biglaw job, he can escape his debt. If he fails, he's stuck with a mortgage-sized loan that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

If he fails to land an at least solid middle class position, then his life could be fucked up for decades, especially if he has over $100,000 in debt. (Given the cost of undergraduate and law school tuition today, the later of which has become completely insane ($47,000/year at some places and not only at the top schools), coming out with well over $100,000 is not out of the question and might even be probable.)

Just what are we supposed to do with these people who will essentially end up as slaves to their student loan creditors? It's almost as though they will end up living in debtors' prisons without walls--because they adhered to society's dogma about higher education and tried to better themselves--not because they are worthless bums.

It's just the whole idea of something being a "birthright" that disturbs me. My perspective is probably skewed because I went to law school, and while it was no picnic, I don't feel that the majority of law school taught me anything at all. Effort and money spent is irrelevant in the context of whether a person is actually doing something of value for the client. I could spend 10 years on an Art History Ph.D., but if I'm not doing something of value for someone, why should I feel entitled to get paid for it?

Many clients are telling the firms that the work of these new graduates is not worth the cost of their billable hours.

I will try to find a link to a Philadelphia Inquirer article about corporations specifically asking large firms like Morgan Lewis not to put first year associates on their cases. The clients did not want to pay for large amounts of billable hours for work done by people who really didn't know anything.

Edit:

As early as 2007, corporate General Counsels were already becoming alarmed at associate salaries, and some had started moving towards asking firms not to use 1 and 2 year associates on their matters.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1187686939973

Altman Weil put a survey out in May of 38 of the 200 largest law departments in the United States. Of those law firm clients, not a single one had been contacted by one of their law firms about what the salary increases might mean for them, according to the survey.

In response, 83.8 percent of clients said they thought their law firms should have contacted them to discuss associate salary increases.

While 15.8 percent of clients chalked the increases up to the "cost of doing business with law firms," 57.9 percent characterized the latest round of starting associate salaries as "outrageous," the survey said.

A small number of companies -- 13.2 percent -- reported changing their policies with respect to allowing law firms to utilize first- and second-year associates on their matters.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
No matter where you get a degree, unless you pass the bar for a given state, you are not allowed to practice within that state infront of a court.

What it seems:
You have is contract type law handling/paperwork that is being outsourced.
The papework is being reviewd, analyzed for large corporations that would normally have legal AIDES handling verification.

This is the OP's answer. Lawyers are still doing just fine, and while new graduates are finding things tough in this economy that's true about every single profession. As long as you don't go to a shit law school, you're fine. If those guys in India aren't members of the state bar association the best they can do is document reading, etc... things that were shit jobs for lawyers anyway.

The hint that this story is alarmist is that you're forced to say 'increasingly' without providing numbers.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Engineer
Good ole Steve Forbes probably loves this. He also suggests that the way to cure health care costs in this country is to offshore treatment to countries like India. Stated that you could have a surgery that would cost $150,000 in the US for around $6,000, including airline tickets, in India.

Welcome to McDonalds...would you like a checkup with your fries? I'm a doctor as well as your order taker (thick India voice)!

I'm not sure if you meant for your post to be a joke, but there is already something called medical tourism, which is basically what you described - people traveling overseas to receive treatment for a fraction of the cost compared to the US. Obviously there are quality of care issues, but I'm just saying that it does happen.

It wasn't a joke and I absolutely know. Very few jobs are safe in the US from the low wages of the rest of the world and too many people think that we can educate ourselves out of the upcoming problem. Sorta like spending our way to prosperity...it rarely happens.

Originally posted by: Underclocked
Perhaps this will encourage more young people to train for honorable positions ...

Those positions, for the most part, are just as vulnerable (or more) to being offshored than the lawyers that the OP talks about.

 

[stateofbeasley]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
No matter where you get a degree, unless you pass the bar for a given state, you are not allowed to practice within that state infront of a court.

What it seems:
You have is contract type law handling/paperwork that is being outsourced.
The papework is being reviewd, analyzed for large corporations that would normally have legal AIDES handling verification.

This is the OP's answer. Lawyers are still doing just fine, and while new graduates are finding things tough in this economy that's true about every single profession. As long as you don't go to a shit law school, you're fine. If those guys in India aren't members of the state bar association the best they can do is document reading, etc... things that were shit jobs for lawyers anyway.

The hint that this story is alarmist is that you're forced to say 'increasingly' without providing numbers.

It's not just low-end document review.

Legal research, drafting of contracts, and other due diligence work are going offshore.

Even document review itself is practice of law in many circumstances. If an Indian attorney is marking a document as Relevant to issue X, Y, or Z, he is making a legal determination on that document. If an Indian attorney is marking a document as Protected by Privilege, he is making a legal determination on that document. These are judgments based on application of current law.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
No matter where you get a degree, unless you pass the bar for a given state, you are not allowed to practice within that state infront of a court.

What it seems:
You have is contract type law handling/paperwork that is being outsourced.
The papework is being reviewd, analyzed for large corporations that would normally have legal AIDES handling verification.

This is the OP's answer. Lawyers are still doing just fine, and while new graduates are finding things tough in this economy that's true about every single profession. As long as you don't go to a shit law school, you're fine. If those guys in India aren't members of the state bar association the best they can do is document reading, etc... things that were shit jobs for lawyers anyway.

The hint that this story is alarmist is that you're forced to say 'increasingly' without providing numbers.

It's not just low-end document review.

Legal research, drafting of contracts, and other due diligence work are going offshore.

Even document review itself is practice of law in many circumstances. If an Indian attorney is marking a document as Relevant to issue X, Y, or Z, he is making a legal determination on that document. If an Indian attorney is marking a document as Protected by Privilege, he is making a legal determination on that document. These are judgments based on application of current law.

Right, and document review is about the shittiest law job you can possibly have. I know quite a few lawyers and they are all doing just fine with the exception of one friend of mine who just passed the bar. He's having trouble finding work, but who isn't right now?

I do think that the offshore movement of some legal work will end up screwing people who are going to the shit law schools, but if you're going to a tier 4 law school you probably need to seriously consider why you're going at all.

 

[StageLeft]

The article Beasley linked to is just more evidence of the decreasing value of a college education in the United States.

Exactly the opposite I think it's evidence of the increasing value. If people with degrees are having a hard time, what do you think those without are? The numbers say consistently, in times of boom and bust, that those with degrees are more likely to be employed and more like to be well paid.

I only actually know three lawyers. They make money hand over fist, though two of them work very long hours and one of them has no social life and no health. He is a whore for his paymasters. He drives his BMW home at 11 pm at night and back to work at 7 am. Sad, really. Still, he (and he's quite young) could get a job paying less than $100k and normal hours if he wanted, which isn't that bad.

Perhaps this will encourage more young people to train for honorable positions ...

If you're ever charged with murder you didn't commit I bet you'll be flipping through the phone book looking for one of these dishonorable people immediately.

Law has been a good field for a long time. It won't disappear over night. There will be outliers who end up with 200k debt and working at starbucks but the transition for most will be slower. Of course it's worth a new student's consideration as to what his career will look like. It may be that more people need to avoid law. I don't blame somebody taking on high debt for a job that has historically paid very well, though.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
I saw this posted on a legal blog last week:

MSNBC report

Most law schools were a scam 5 years ago, and they are even more of scam today. New law graduates entering the work force are now competing for entry-level work with Indians who will do the same job at a fraction of the cost.

A US law graduate must pay for the following in order to practice law:
- 4 year bachelor's degree
- 3 year Juris Doctor degree
- Pass a state bar examination
- Pay yearly licensing fees
- Complete continuing legal education credits yearly

An Indian attorney has the following U.S. requirements: NONE. No state license, no degree from US accredited school, no licensing fees.

Imagine borrowing $150,000 of non-dischargeable student debt, passing the bar, and then having your job taken by an Indian attorney in Mumbai who practices law over an Internet connection.

Most law schools are nothing but diploma mills. Their students will largely be steamrolled by globalization.

Some people will be able to find jobs in local litigation matters, but you only need so many attorneys to handle personal injury, criminal defense, and family law matters. The yellow pages are riddled with advertisements from local attorneys grasping for any client who will pay some $ upfront.

Your analysis, and presumably that of this report, is severely lacking.

An Indian attorney cannot practice law or represent clients in the United States. He can do legal research and draft contracts (aka, bitch work) that will be sent to an attorney in the United States for revision and approval. Anyone in the United States can do the same thing without spending money on law school, the bar exam, and other fees associated with being an attorney. So, while this may affect attorneys at the bottom of the ladder that do little more than legal bitch work, this will have no affect on attorneys that actually practice the law.

In fact, I think one could argue that if anything, this would actually help attorneys by reducing the cost of research, writing documents, etc. The "attorneys" in India are being hired by US law firms to reduce costs, not by clients to lower attorney fees.

 

[Infohawk]

Remember that American lawyers are basically a guild. And unlike other guilds, they know more about the law than anyone else. Attorneys do well because they set up significant barriers to entry to their trade, not because arguing in court is difficult. It's not a free market.

This will have more of an impact, and I doubt much at that, in corporate and international law where there is nothing that ties the legal matters to the USA. But a whole lot of legal matters are still local and are subject to the barriers to entry.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Remember that American lawyers are basically a guild. And unlike other guilds, they know more about the law than anyone else. Attorneys do well because they set up significant barriers to entry to their trade, not because arguing in court is difficult. It's not a free market.

This will have more of an impact, and I doubt much at that, in corporate and international law where there is nothing that ties the legal matters to the USA. But a whole lot of legal matters are still local and are subject to the barriers to entry.

Creating a legal argument that will win in court against another lawyer is several orders of magnitude more difficult than I think you understand.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I still have yet to personally find a lawyer who makes less than 150K. My brother in law made partner last year and pulls in nearly 500K.

This reminds me of the well-to-do physician who says, "I should have become an MBA; all the MBAs I know are rich."

Thing is, when you're a member of the upper middle class or upper class as you would be as a physician, the people you meet also tend to be members of that class, which makes the pool of people you meet very self-selecting. You only get to meet the successful MBAs and lawyers, the ones who can afford to live in your neighborhood and hobnob with other well-to-do people. In contrast, you don't get to meet the down-on-his-luck unemployed or underemployed MBA who manages a shoe store or the lawyer who struggles to make $30,000/year doing occasional public defender work.

this ^^

I'm not a lawyer but even I know govt. lawyers (especially public defenders) and non-profit lawyers are paid WAY less tha 150k.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Remember that American lawyers are basically a guild. And unlike other guilds, they know more about the law than anyone else. Attorneys do well because they set up significant barriers to entry to their trade, not because arguing in court is difficult. It's not a free market.

This will have more of an impact, and I doubt much at that, in corporate and international law where there is nothing that ties the legal matters to the USA. But a whole lot of legal matters are still local and are subject to the barriers to entry.

Creating a legal argument that will win in court against another lawyer is several orders of magnitude more difficult than I think you understand.

I would agree in general, but would say that your comment would be more related to unsettled law. I know that a good lawyer can construe to outlandish lengths using existing law that might be on point but unfavorable to the client. I've read some, especially as it may relate to Business Law. Negligence comes to mind.
One case that comes to mind involved a city project that had a single issue with a single Contractor but named in the suit were everyone who had anything to do with the project. Every Sub every supplier. This amounted to some 40 entities. All but non-corporations had to hire an attorney. The lowest fee I know of was 10,000$ and they ended being dropped from the suit early on. But the issue here I feel is that since a Corporation cannot go Pro Se/Per it must have an attorney in most if not all States for most all legal matters.
I feel that a legal education even if it is part time (4 yr max in Ca) or even an on line at home type affair is not a wasted endeavor. Passing the bar, however, is essential to securing the best interests of any company that don't have $ for legal counsel on every issue that may arise.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Creating a legal argument that will win in court against another lawyer is several orders of magnitude more difficult than I think you understand.

It's a common misconception that a lawyer's debating skills will dictate the outcome of a case. The justice system is not that arbitrary even if outsiders think it is. It mainly comes down to whether the facts and law are on your side. In situations where the facts are really up in the air, witness credibility is going to count a lot more than a lawyer's hemming and hawing. With that said, of course some lawyers are better and more persuasive than others.

But my point is that lawyers get paid a lot because they are essentially in a guild. It has little to do with the difficulty of their work. It's economics 101 and supply and demand. Your "you know know what you're talking about" snit doesn't defeat my argument.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
But the issue here I feel is that since a Corporation cannot go Pro Se/Per it must have an attorney in most if not all States for most all legal matters.

This is true and is a great example how lawyers shelter themselves from competition. Also, the legal system makes lawyers almost indispensable if you are in court by making the system as complex as possible.

With all this said, I think this is one area where we do not necessarily want to outsource and that's why I'm not too bent out of shape about the bar (aka legal guild). We want locals who can run the justice system. Just like we want policemen who are Americans and not foreign mercenaries. The justice system is one of the very basic functions of government and should not be outsourced. (Again, I think international commercial lawyering is something different and this is where a lot of American firms may ultimately lose out.) The OP is an exaggeration.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Creating a legal argument that will win in court against another lawyer is several orders of magnitude more difficult than I think you understand.

It's a common misconception that a lawyer's debating skills will dictate the outcome of a case. The justice system is not that arbitrary even if outsiders think it is. It mainly comes down to whether the facts and law are on your side. In situations where the facts are really up in the air, witness credibility is going to count a lot more than a lawyer's hemming and hawing. With that said, of course some lawyers are better and more persuasive than others.

But my point is that lawyers get paid a lot because they are essentially in a guild. It has little to do with the difficulty of their work. It's economics 101 and supply and demand. Your "you know know what you're talking about" snit doesn't defeat my argument.

There is a notion that the larger the firm and the position of the attorney in that firm along with length of time in practice and school attended has alot to do with the confidence of the other side.
Assume a sole practitioner versus some major firm in a large city. The lonely attorney has to devote an inordinate amount of time to find the applicable case law, develop strategy, consider counter argument, counter that. He has to research expert testimony proffers, all the witnesses who'll be involved, prepare for hearings, develop all the motion papers, and on and on... All the while he knows the other side has a horde of bright attorneys doing the same with a blank check versus his client who, no doubt, if rich would be playing on an even field.
The above is a case not uncommon in reality and it poses a question. Well, you know the question. Money can buy a view of the facts as they relate to the law that the absence of money cannot. Not to mention that a tired brain is less likely to provide adequate counsel.

IMO, of course...

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
There is a notion that the larger the firm and the position of the attorney in that firm along with length of time in practice and school attended has alot to do with the confidence of the other side.

You're right. Brand names and product price can be impressive ... as legal marketing tools. There is always someone out there who will be impressed by these things. And I think it makes sense that a lot of the people running giant corporations will hire huge expensive counsel because it is safer to do that than to be fired by the board for skimping on a legal defense.

But I think this is more about sales than about marketing and it many cases it's overkill. There is no question that a huge firm of Harvard grad _could_ often take down a lowly solo local attorney from an unaccredited school. However, if that lowly local guy has an authenticated video of GINORMOUS CORP. dumping waste into a local river against the law, he's going to be a lot richer than those Harvard lawyers at the end of the day. (Goes back to having facts and law on your side.) Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you though.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: LunarRay
But the issue here I feel is that since a Corporation cannot go Pro Se/Per it must have an attorney in most if not all States for most all legal matters.

This is true and is a great example how lawyers shelter themselves from competition. Also, the legal system makes lawyers almost indispensable if you are in court by making the system as complex as possible.

With all this said, I think this is one area where we do not necessarily want to outsource and that's why I'm not too bent out of shape about the bar (aka legal guild). We want locals who can run the justice system. Just like we want policemen who are Americans and not foreign mercenaries. The justice system is one of the very basic functions of government and should not be outsourced. (Again, I think international commercial lawyering is something different and this is where a lot of American firms may ultimately lose out.) The OP is an exaggeration.

I'm not an attorney. I am educated in the law. However, I have never sat for the bar. I view the role of many CFO corporate types, as I was, to be more preemptive regarding the legal aspects of business and in my opinion, all aspects of business involve a legal aspect as well as what ever the main focus is. IF a Corporation cannot afford to staff an attorney it becomes all the more important to have someone who can act in the stead of one. Mainly, I suppose, in development of Contracts, but everything else as well.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: LunarRay
There is a notion that the larger the firm and the position of the attorney in that firm along with length of time in practice and school attended has alot to do with the confidence of the other side.

You're right. Brand names and product price can be impressive ... as legal marketing tools. There is always someone out there who will be impressed by these things. And I think it makes sense that a lot of the people running giant corporations will hire huge expensive counsel because it is safer to do that than to be fired by the board for skimping on a legal defense.

But I think this is more about sales than about marketing and it many cases it's overkill. There is no question that a huge firm of Harvard grad _could_ often take down a lowly solo local attorney from an unaccredited school. However, if that lowly local guy has an authenticated video of GINORMOUS CORP. dumping waste into a local river against the law, he's going to be a lot richer than those Harvard lawyers at the end of the day. (Goes back to having facts and law on your side.) Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you though.

OK, right... I see your point. Karen Silkwood comes to mind and that girl who was a Paralegal. I think and since became an attorney. I'm getting too old to remember stuff :+)