Attorney jobs increasingly outsourced to India

[fskimospy]

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.

It's not about debate skill, it's about research and knowledge of the law. Cases aren't won by Johnnie Cocheran's 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit', it's won by a lot of hard work behind the scenes.

You're more than welcome to represent yourself if you ever get into trouble (since it's so easy and all), but for your sake I would strongly recommend against it.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
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.

I think your whole "guild" hypothesis is total bullshit. There isn't an artificial shortage of lawyers or increase in fees because of bar association requirements. Lawyers, in general, get paid a decent amount of money because, like engineers and doctors, lawyers are professionals that invest a large amount of their time learning and supporting their craft. In the grand scheme of things, becoming a member of the bar is probably the easiest (and least expensive) step in the process of becoming a lawyer for anyone that's already gone through 4 years of college and 3 years of law school.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's not about debate skill, it's about research and knowledge of the law. Cases aren't won by Johnnie Cocheran's 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit', it's won by a lot of hard work behind the scenes.

You're more than welcome to represent yourself if you ever get into trouble (since it's so easy and all), but for your sake I would strongly recommend against it.

The assumptions you make say more about you than they do about me.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I think your whole "guild" hypothesis is total bullshit.

Do you deny that lawyers generally control access to their own profession? Do you deny that supply and effect have an impact on the price of hiring a lawyer?

There isn't an artificial shortage of lawyers or increase in fees because of bar association requirements. Lawyers, in general, get paid a decent amount of money because, like engineers and doctors, lawyers are professionals that invest a large amount of their time learning and supporting their craft. In the grand scheme of things, becoming a member of the bar is probably the easiest (and least expensive) step in the process of becoming a lawyer for anyone that's already gone through 4 years of college and 3 years of law school.

I don't know what state you're in but California has a large legal market. Hint: the CA bar is not known for being easy to pass. And they do keep statistics on that fact. And I like how you compare the bar to getting 4 and 3+ year degrees. Those are part of the barriers! And you point out two other professions that are also guilds to compare to. Not helpful.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
Topic Title: Attorney jobs increasingly outsourced to India
Topic Summary: Wage abritrage makes many U.S. law degrees increasingly worthless

Well since this is yet another industry out of control ($200hr) I have zero sympathy.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

It's not about debate skill, it's about research and knowledge of the law. Cases aren't won by Johnnie Cocheran's 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit', it's won by a lot of hard work behind the scenes.

You're more than welcome to represent yourself if you ever get into trouble (since it's so easy and all), but for your sake I would strongly recommend against it.

[/quote]

You mean like all those "shit jobs" that need to get done and done right?

 

[1prophet]

Those outsourced "shit jobs" could end up biting a law firm in the ass.

Text

Law firms looking to cut costs by outsourcing their legal support services overseas could be jeopardizing their client confidentiality, according to a recent federal suit filed by a Bethesda, Md., firm.

Joseph Hennessey, name partner at Newman McIntosh & Hennessey, turned to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 7 seeking a ruling on the outsourcing of privileged client data that may be subject to eavesdropping by the U.S. government.

Hennessey, who in 2005 wrote a column for Legal Times on the Fourth Amendment and privacy rights, says foreign companies have no presumption of privacy because the National Security Agency is free to spy on them without constitutional constraints.

"We are really heading toward a collision between globalized economic interests and the limited extension of constitutional rights," Hennessey says.

The lawsuit names President George W. Bush as a co-defendant along with Acumen Legal Services of India and its U.S. subsidiary, Acumen Solutions of Houston, Texas.

The firm is looking to the court to rule on whether outsourcing of legal services compromises constitutional rights and whether consent should be required before such data is sent abroad. It also wants the court to order law firms to disclose their use of foreign legal support and to order that the government establish protocols to shield attorney-client information from surveillance.

"It seeks this declaration knowing that foreign nationals who reside overseas lack Fourth Amendment protections," says the firm's complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. "It seeks this declaration having been informed ... that the United States government engages in pervasive surveillance of electronically transmitted data."

Hennessey, who also has filed requests for opinions with the D.C. Bar and the Maryland State Bar Association, says Acumen solicited his company via e-mails earlier this year.

"It's not paranoia. It's just fact," Hennessey says. "Now that we're outsourcing services, we have given no consideration to the ongoing practice of the government harvesting information out there."

He says he's also concerned that information from his firm, which especializes in personal injury and medical malpractice, could -- through discovery -- fall into the hands of competitors who employ outsourced services.

District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who also is chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, has been assigned to the case. A representative for Acumen's corporate headquarters in India had no comment.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
Topic Title: Attorney jobs increasingly outsourced to India
Topic Summary: Wage abritrage makes many U.S. law degrees increasingly worthless

Well since this is yet another industry out of control ($200hr) I have zero sympathy.

Dave,
Until they out source the courts I think most civil and criminal law will stay here. I think the only bit that can be outsourced would be research which is usually a paralegal function anyhow. BUT notwithstanding the OP link, I think the ABA will sort out anything that is untoward going on.
$200 per hour... wow :+)

That must be the average of large firms.

My friends daughter left an intellectual property specializing firm to clerk for a Magistrate in Federal Court cuz she made more there than in the firm. Guess that may not be the same everywhere or in every case...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
Topic Title: Attorney jobs increasingly outsourced to India
Topic Summary: Wage arbitrage makes many U.S. law degrees increasingly worthless

Well since this is yet another industry out of control ($200hr) I have zero sympathy.

Because a firm bills at that rate, does not mean the lawyer is being paid at that rate.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I think your whole "guild" hypothesis is total bullshit.

Do you deny that lawyers generally control access to their own profession? Do you deny that supply and effect have an impact on the price of hiring a lawyer?

There isn't an artificial shortage of lawyers or increase in fees because of bar association requirements. Lawyers, in general, get paid a decent amount of money because, like engineers and doctors, lawyers are professionals that invest a large amount of their time learning and supporting their craft. In the grand scheme of things, becoming a member of the bar is probably the easiest (and least expensive) step in the process of becoming a lawyer for anyone that's already gone through 4 years of college and 3 years of law school.

I don't know what state you're in but California has a large legal market. Hint: the CA bar is not known for being easy to pass. And they do keep statistics on that fact. And I like how you compare the bar to getting 4 and 3+ year degrees. Those are part of the barriers! And you point out two other professions that are also guilds to compare to. Not helpful.

Are you really going to claim that standards are an unfair barrier to a profession? Do you really want to have doctors, engineers, and lawyers that do not meet certain professional requirements, whether it be licensing or education?

 

[stateofbeasley]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
Topic Title: Attorney jobs increasingly outsourced to India
Topic Summary: Wage abritrage makes many U.S. law degrees increasingly worthless

Well since this is yet another industry out of control ($200hr) I have zero sympathy.

Dave,
Until they out source the courts I think most civil and criminal law will stay here. I think the only bit that can be outsourced would be research which is usually a paralegal function anyhow. BUT notwithstanding the OP link, I think the ABA will sort out anything that is untoward going on.
$200 per hour... wow :+)

That must be the average of large firms.

My friends daughter left an intellectual property specializing firm to clerk for a Magistrate in Federal Court cuz she made more there than in the firm. Guess that may not be the same everywhere or in every case...

Before the recession hit, the going rate for a partner was $800-$1000/hr in major East Coast metropolitan areas. $200/hr is closer to a junior associate's billable rate.

I'll post this link again for dmcowen and the others who think all lawyers make a lot of money:

http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib

It takes business skills and lawyering skills to make money in this business. Exceedingly few people who go to law school have both. So the only people who make lots of money are those who get into the big firms (top 5% of graduates from most schools in this economy, maybe top 40% at the best schools now), and those rare types who can make a small practice run without running into the ground.

 

[stateofbeasley]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I think your whole "guild" hypothesis is total bullshit.

Do you deny that lawyers generally control access to their own profession? Do you deny that supply and effect have an impact on the price of hiring a lawyer?

There isn't an artificial shortage of lawyers or increase in fees because of bar association requirements. Lawyers, in general, get paid a decent amount of money because, like engineers and doctors, lawyers are professionals that invest a large amount of their time learning and supporting their craft. In the grand scheme of things, becoming a member of the bar is probably the easiest (and least expensive) step in the process of becoming a lawyer for anyone that's already gone through 4 years of college and 3 years of law school.

I don't know what state you're in but California has a large legal market. Hint: the CA bar is not known for being easy to pass. And they do keep statistics on that fact. And I like how you compare the bar to getting 4 and 3+ year degrees. Those are part of the barriers! And you point out two other professions that are also guilds to compare to. Not helpful.

Are you really going to claim that standards are an unfair barrier to a profession? Do you really want to have doctors, engineers, and lawyers that do not meet certain professional requirements, whether it be licensing or education?

Law is different than medicine or engineering.

Law school is a joke of a requirement. Even the professors admitted that most of what they taught was so abstract that it was useless in the real world. Some more technical areas, like tax, are an exception.

Likewise, licensing requirements are an expensive joke. The bar exam has almost zero relevance to actual law or practice. The multistate portion tests very old common law that is largely obsolete, and the essays are little more than a repeat of 1st year subject examinations. You basically take a 10 week cram course costing $2500-$3000 and then take the bar. Any first or second year law student could pass this exam.

There is a place for academic thought in the law, but not everyone needs this gobledegook. Physicians have internships and teaching hospitals. Lawyers have some shallow summer associateships if they are lucky, but no rigorous professional training.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
Law is different than medicine or engineering.

Law school is a joke of a requirement. Even the professors admitted that most of what they taught was so abstract that it was useless in the real world. Some more technical areas, like tax, are an exception.

Likewise, licensing requirements are an expensive joke. The bar exam has almost zero relevance to actual law or practice. The multistate portion tests very old common law that is largely obsolete, and the essays are little more than a repeat of 1st year subject examinations. You basically take a 10 week cram course costing $2500-$3000 and then take the bar. Any first or second year law student could pass this exam.

There is a place for academic thought in the law, but not everyone needs this gobledegook. Physicians have internships and teaching hospitals. Lawyers have some shallow summer associateships if they are lucky, but no rigorous professional training.

What experience do you have with law school, the bar exam, and profession in general? I'm curious if this is your first hand opinion or merely a repeat of what you've heard from other people.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Are you really going to claim that standards are an unfair barrier to a profession?

I didn't say anything about fair. Presumably, that's your strawman. It's a barrier to entry placed their mainly for the benefit of the people in the guild.

Do you really want to have doctors, engineers, and lawyers that do not meet certain professional requirements, whether it be licensing or education?

As a practical matter, I think it's a pretty easy sell to the public to say that engineers and doctors need to be licensed. Personally, I don't really buy that the government is in the best position to protect me from unqualified professionals. I for one would be willing to take a nurse's advice on whether I need antibiotics for a minor infection though. Most people are smart enough to seek quality when they need it and check out the product (education, experience, word of mouth, etc.). The only real exception I see is emergency room doctors. There, patients really have no choice who sees them so they should be licensed to a certain standard.

Anyway, if you read my other posts you would see that I don't have a problem with regulating the justice system and the people that work within it. It's still a barrier to entry that keeps wages artificially high for the majority of the members.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Are you really going to claim that standards are an unfair barrier to a profession?

I didn't say anything about fair. Presumably, that's your strawman. It's a barrier to entry placed their mainly for the benefit of the people in the guild.

Do you really want to have doctors, engineers, and lawyers that do not meet certain professional requirements, whether it be licensing or education?

As a practical matter, I think it's a pretty easy sell to the public to say that engineers and doctors need to be licensed. Personally, I don't really buy that the government is in the best position to protect me from unqualified professionals. I for one would be willing to take a nurse's advice on whether I need antibiotics for a minor infection though. Most people are smart enough to seek quality when they need it and check out the product (education, experience, word of mouth, etc.). The only real exception I see is emergency room doctors. There, patients really have no choice who sees them so they should be licensed to a certain standard.

Anyway, if you read my other posts you would see that I don't have a problem with regulating the justice system and the people that work within it. It's still a barrier to entry that keeps wages artificially high for the majority of the members.

I don't see how you can call my use of the word "unfair" a strawman argument. However, it seems silly to squabble over it, so let's move on.

I'm not sure what your comment about nurses, doctors and government protection has to do with the argument considering the ABA (and corresponding state bar associations) are not government sanctioned. They are industry standards, not government imposed standards.

And what exactly are you comparing these "artificially high" wages to? Artificially high compared to what?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Are you really going to claim that standards are an unfair barrier to a profession?

I didn't say anything about fair. Presumably, that's your strawman. It's a barrier to entry placed their mainly for the benefit of the people in the guild.

Do you really want to have doctors, engineers, and lawyers that do not meet certain professional requirements, whether it be licensing or education?

As a practical matter, I think it's a pretty easy sell to the public to say that engineers and doctors need to be licensed. Personally, I don't really buy that the government is in the best position to protect me from unqualified professionals. I for one would be willing to take a nurse's advice on whether I need antibiotics for a minor infection though. Most people are smart enough to seek quality when they need it and check out the product (education, experience, word of mouth, etc.). The only real exception I see is emergency room doctors. There, patients really have no choice who sees them so they should be licensed to a certain standard.

Anyway, if you read my other posts you would see that I don't have a problem with regulating the justice system and the people that work within it. It's still a barrier to entry that keeps wages artificially high for the majority of the members.

I usually don't get myself too involved in these threads because one could talk about issues like this for ages.

I do believe the barriers to entry for many professions that require educational requirements are a bit bunk. In a BS of Accounting for example you only have about ~40 credits of real, functional accounting courses out of 120~ish. I hate fluff like that.

But as far as the exam goes for things like CPA's, having a way to separate the true, knowledgeable accountants from those who took H&R Block "Quick Tax Prep!" courses is helpful.

Is 5-6 years of education to meet the 150 credit hour prereq. that is mostly filler really needed? Not really. But it is the same with Engineering and Law and Medicine. Just have to suck it up. (Yes I know law and medicine require more and engineers can get away with a little less.)

The education system in this country creates "Well rounded people" as a barrier to entry for many that go after higher paying professions, requiring them to perform in many subjects, that is an obvious take away.

Honestly, our knowledge jobs are doable at lower wages, and I understand that.

I also understand that businesses have a goal to maximize profits.

But if we all just give in to that mentality and destroy the economic structures in place we don't all get ahead, a few get farther ahead and most of us get thrown down a social class.

Sure we might not end up third world poor, but we may end up doing middle class jobs for lower class wages.

 

[JS80]

Left Brain: This is great, this will drive down legal costs.

Right Brain: Hah! Who in their right mind will hire a fucking lawyer in India??

 

[Darthvoy]

Did you guys actually see the video? Most of the work being outsourced to India is stuff having to do with the bad mortgage loans. Not that surprising, really. You don't need high priced lawyers to push legal paper. The process in India seemed rather standardized too.

To make it as a lawyer, nowadays, you pretty much have to go to a top school and graduate at the top of your class. My friend is graduating next year from a tier one school and was making 1.5k a week this summer at an internship. The law degree is suffering from the early stages, or perhaps it's at the midway point, to over saturation in the same way as the BS & BA.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
Did you guys actually see the video? Most of the work being outsourced to India is stuff having to do with the bad mortgage loans. Not that surprising, really. You don't need high priced lawyers to push legal paper. The process in India seemed rather standardized too.

To make it as a lawyer, nowadays, you pretty much have to go to a top school and graduate at the top of your class. My friend is graduating next year from a tier one school and was making 1.5k a week this summer at an internship. The law degree is suffering from the early stages, or perhaps it's at the midway point, to over saturation in the same way as the BS & BA.

Yeah, like all outsourcing, it will always start with low level standardizable work. But with Indian companies gaining more experiance, they will be able to take on more advance stuff eventually.

Just like IT, originally most of the job outsourced was coding, but now many advanced stuff like project management, strategic planning is also being outsourced.

And with the US educated people not able to get into low level stuff, it will be tough for less experienced people to get into the profession, and gain the experience to move up the career. And basically it will be like what you said, only people with top school and prior experience will be able to get into the profession. But eventually, as outsourcing companies get more experience, even top talent will have strong competition from oversea.

I think government needs to be involved in planning what skill/industry is important for the country. Private companies will always take the short term view, what ever cost least and allow them to make money right now. So it's up to the government to see if the skill is important enough to keep it inside the country, even if it will cost more than simply let other countries do it. Me personally, I'd rather see IT skill in the US than law skills but that's just me.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: rchiu

I think government needs to be involved in planning what skill/industry is important for the country. Private companies will always take the short term view, what ever cost least and allow them to make money right now. So it's up to the government to see if the skill is important enough to keep it inside the country, even if it will cost more than simply let other countries do it. Me personally, I'd rather see IT skill in the US than law skills but that's just me.

I'd rather see both. We have to look out for our nation on the whole, not just our own professions.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Me personally, I'd rather see IT skill in the US than law skills but that's just me.

Knowledge of the law is arguably the most country-specific skill one can possess, and you don't mind outsourcing it? Even over IT: A skill that is the same regardless of one's country? Wow.

 

[Safeway]

I was summoned to this thread by a concerned friend. Thanks for drawing my attention to this extravagant display of inaccuracies and squabble. I skimmed the posts and will comment on certain ignorant statements and misconceptions.

T14 or public law school: I tend to agree, but even then, there are exceptions. Let's get the naming conventions out of the way. T14 refers to the top 14 law school as defined by a national poll/test. Tier 1 refers generally to schools ranked 1 through 50. Tier 2 refers to schools ranked 51 through 100. Tier 3 and Tier 4 schools are not ranked, but are instead grouped into the categories of 'almost worthless' and 'worthless', respectively. Tier 1 schools are normally worth the money. A friend of mine graduated from Michigan with $120,000 in debt, but was immediately hired at $160,000 after graduating. Tier 1 students fill most private firm jobs. Tier 2 students fill the remainder. Tier 3 and Tier 4 graduates end up working as receptionists or paralegals, or for the state or federal government. That's if they are lucky. If they are not lucky, they didn't finish law school and had $80,000 in debt and no income as proof.

Outsourced lawyers: No time soon. I can see a paralegal's work getting outsourced, but not an attorney's. Not until the government allows foreign representatives without bar accreditation to represent clients in state and federal courts. And on that note, I am going to change "no time soon" to "never."

Associate pay, partner pay: It is true, attorneys bill at exorbitant rates. A decent family lawyer bills at $700 -- and that isn't some rich family's powerhouse attorney. That is a small firm principal. As much as people on this forum seem to hate the law profession, it is a completely necessary profession. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution were very intelligent attorneys. They ensured that the future of their profession would always be in high demand. And with good reason. People are fucking stupid. Someone here said that courtroom outcomes are based primarily on the intersection of law and facts. They seem to believe that in the court of law, only three questions are necessary: What are the facts? What are the applicable laws? Do the facts conform to the applicable law? As I said early, people are fucking stupid. The outcomes depend on the advocacy. Proper advocacy costs. A lot.

I didn't reply to everything. I started replying to more statements, but the shear lack of intelligence displayed by a few of you guys is repulsive.

And yes, there are probably typos and grammatical errors. I am too busy with ongoing patent infringement litigation to continue educating the wall that is P&N fanatics.

Tschuse.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: rchiu
Me personally, I'd rather see IT skill in the US than law skills but that's just me.

Knowledge of the law is arguably the most country-specific skill one can possess, and you don't mind outsourcing it? Even over IT: A skill that is the same regardless of one's country? Wow.

Again, it's personally opinion. But I believe technology gives a country competitive advantage in everything it does. Manufacturing, services, logistics. Anything from sending someone to the moon, making advance weapon, and collect intelligence. Don't think some guy debating precedence can do all that.

It's not about country specific and if other people can do it better, cheaper. I already said you may have to stop outsourcing regardless of the cost because of the strategic importance, which means do you want your country to keep those important skills and capability inspite of the cost so that during extra-ordinary times, like time of war you have the ability.

 

[LunarRay]

Oh my! Do I feel edified and vindicated? You bet!

You all ATOT fanatics hush now and go back to your mundane what ever it is you do. We had a real live what ever he is drop in to illuminate our otherwise darkened view of law reality.

I had completely forgotten that our founders were die hard lawyers who knew we helpless followers were stupid. I some how figured they didn't give women the vote back then cuz them women folks were even more stupid than the stupid men. But, that aside, I can't imagine the founders creating the preservation of the profession subtly hid within the founding document The Lawyer and Accountant Job Security Act. I thought it novel when Reagan proposed it. Amazing they could do that. Simply amazing just how much more intellect those lawyer patriots had.

Ah well... Guess it is time to read another thread since this one is filled with the absence of cogent thought or some such as that. I leave, however, with the knowledge of my misconception... or was that in the Abortion thread... I'm so confused...

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Are you really going to claim that standards are an unfair barrier to a profession?

I didn't say anything about fair. Presumably, that's your strawman. It's a barrier to entry placed their mainly for the benefit of the people in the guild.

Do you really want to have doctors, engineers, and lawyers that do not meet certain professional requirements, whether it be licensing or education?

As a practical matter, I think it's a pretty easy sell to the public to say that engineers and doctors need to be licensed. Personally, I don't really buy that the government is in the best position to protect me from unqualified professionals. I for one would be willing to take a nurse's advice on whether I need antibiotics for a minor infection though. Most people are smart enough to seek quality when they need it and check out the product (education, experience, word of mouth, etc.). The only real exception I see is emergency room doctors. There, patients really have no choice who sees them so they should be licensed to a certain standard.

Anyway, if you read my other posts you would see that I don't have a problem with regulating the justice system and the people that work within it. It's still a barrier to entry that keeps wages artificially high for the majority of the members.

Hm, that's a solid point.