Top Ten Reasons Why Law Firms Should Consider Selective Legal Outsourcing

In the last quarter of 2008 America faces economic challenges never imagined even a few months ago. How will businesses manage and survive the limitations on credit, demand and growth? How does the economic downturn impact lawyers and law firms which service the business community?

It is an obvious fact that businesses can only look at modifying two revenue streams, income and expenses, in order to increase profitability. If income is down and not expected to increase markedly in the near term, clients of law firms will take the hatchet to expenses in order to survive. Legal fees will be under extreme scrutiny. Legal outsourcing, while still a nascent industry, is gaining momentum, being considered in more corporate boardrooms. As the pressures to outsource build, lawyers ponder whether they should embrace outsourcing legal work offshore or resist it. In the face of global economic challenges coupled with the increasing loss of American jobs why would a U.S. law firm want to even consider legal outsourcing? Are there valid reasons why targeted legal outsourcing should be considered by every U.S. law firm?

Several weeks ago I received an email from a lawyer who was considering outsourcing some of the legal work of his law firm. Facing resistance and challenges from many in his law firm who wanted to maintain the status quo, he asked for my advice as to what he should tell his partners. Why should the firm outsource legal work offshore, a practice seen by some as adventuresome and risky, instead of staying the course, doing it "the way we have always done it." I answered him with the top ten reasons why every law firm should consider selective legal outsourcing:

1. PRUDENT, TARGETED OUTSOURCING WILL RESULT IN REDUCED LAW FIRM OVERHEAD

Outsourcing some legal work to qualified providers in India will result in significantly lower overhead to the outsourcing law firm. In assessing the comparative costs the law firm will be wise to carefully calculate the real costs of employing one lawyer or paralegal. Those costs include salary and bonus, health insurance, vacation and holiday pay, sick time expense, FICA, office space and equipment for the lawyer, paralegal and secretarial staff assigned to that lawyer, pension and profit sharing, auto and parking expense, CLE seminar costs, and other employment benefits such as disability and life insurance. The real annual cost of one lawyer earning a base annual salary of $150,000-$175,000 is more likely in the range of $250,000 to $300,000 per year. NONE of these customary expenses accrue to a law firm utilizing supplemental offshore legal providers.

2. OUTSOURCING WILL ENHANCE LAW FIRM EFFICIENCIES

Selective outsourcing will improve the efficiency of your law firm. Because Indian lawyers work while American lawyers sleep, it will be like your law firm has a full time, fully staffed night shift. Some work can be assigned by a partner at 6 p.m. in the evening and the completed task on his desk when he arrives at the office the next morning. Litigation cases will move more rapidly through the court system with less need for extensions of time.

3. OUTSOURCING WILL RESULT IN IMPROVED LAWYER MORALE

As a child not many of the sermons I heard from my pastor stuck with me. But one, when I was fourteen years of age still rings a bell. He said: "Ninety percent of any worthwhile endeavor is pack work, plugging, day in and day out. Only ten percent of our work tasks are necessarily fun and enjoyable." I have always remembered that statement. In more than two decades as a trial lawyer I enjoyed strategizing and trying cases to juries. But I did not necessarily enjoy all of the trial and deposition preparation, research and briefing, document review, and other mundane essentials of the practice of law. A law firm which incorporates outsourcing into its practice will inevitably foster more contented lawyers who devote their time and energies to the more challenging, fun and rewarding parts of the practice of law. Only the "chore" legal work is outsourced with the "core" work staying onshore. This allows more time for client interaction and development by the firm's lawyers.

4. OUTSOURCING WILL RESULT IN OVERALL SAVINGS IN LEGAL FEES TO CLIENTS

Clients of law firms, particularly business clients, are searching far and wide for ways to cut their legal expenses. Many ask why they should pay, for example, $200 to $300 hourly for document review. Gone are the days when legal bills are simply paid without scrutiny. Likewise, the annual increases in hourly rates will not be well received by clients looking to cut costs. Wise law firms put the interests of their clients above their own. What is good for the client will ultimately be good for the law firm itself.

5. THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT REQUIRE OUTSOURCING CONSIDERATION

The Rules of Professional Conduct of require that: a. "A lawyer should seek to achieve the lawful objectives of a client through reasonable permissible means." (Rule 1.2) b. "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation." (Rule 1.4 b) c. "A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client." (Rule 3.2)

A lawyer is required to explore and discuss with his client all reasonable means of accomplishing the client's objectives. A lawyer is not permitted to charge an unreasonable or excessive fee. It would seem that a lawyer is arguably required to discuss selective outsourcing as a way of reducing the client's ultimate fee obligation and furthering the interests of the client.

6. OUTSOURCING "CHORE" LEGAL WORK PROMOTES CLIENT RETENTION AND DEVELOPMENT

Clients have long questioned ever-increasing legal fees for basic, "chore" legal work. However, they felt as if they had no alternative. They needed the legal representation and wanted good quality work. As there was not a significant degree of fee variance from law firm to law firm, clients tended to "stay put." This trend is beginning to change as clients learn that they have options. Lawyers who outsource selectively are reporting a more contented, loyal client base. Clients who perceive that their lawyers are looking out for the entirety of the their interests, including fee costs, tend to remain committed to their existing law firms and even refer other clients (whose lawyers refuse to outsource).

7. THE COMPETITION IS OUTSOURCING

If your law firm is not outsourcing, be certain that your competition is. On August 21, 2007 Bloomberg. com reported that even long-established AMLAW 100 law firms like Jones Day and Kirkland & Ellis are outsourcing under pressure from clients.

8. OUTSOURCING U.S. LAW FIRMS MAY CHARGE A REASONABLE SUPERVISORY FEE

It is reasonable and acceptable for U.S. law firms outsourcing legal work offshore to charge a reasonable supervisory fee in conjunction with outsourced legal work. It is axiomatic that a lawyer who outsources legal work, whether to an associate, contract lawyer or offshore provider, ultimately remains responsible to his client for the quality and timeliness of delivery of the legal product. If a lawyer assigns the research and writing of a brief to a junior associate, the assigning lawyer will not customarily submit the final work product to the court without review and supervision. So it is with offshore legal outsourcing. Published ethics opinions of the San Diego, New York and American Bar Associations indicate that a lawyer who outsources offshore may charge a reasonable supervisory fee.

9. CLIENTS ARE INSISTING ON SELECTIVE OUTSOURCING TO ACHIEVE COST SAVINGS

Clients talk to one another. Executives of major companies golf and have lunch with one another. Corporate General Counsel attend meetings and CLE seminars, sharing information and ways to increase efficiencies and cut costs. They know about offshore outsourcing and the dramatic cost savings that can be achieved. It is unacceptable, therefore, to ignore legal outsourcing and, as one managing law firm partner told me, have "no appetite" for it.

10. OUTSOURCING WILL HAPPEN.

Doing nothing is not an option. Some are outsourcing. Many more are considering it, whether prompted by keen business sense or financial realities. Outsourcing is like a large, ominous wave a few miles offshore. It is preferable to surf the wave than wait to be engulfed, overwhelmed by its power and left wondering what happened.

British economist Herbert Spencer is credited with originating the term "survival of the fittest" in the mid 19th century. Although also having application to biology, Spencer applied the concept of survival of the fittest to free market economics. In a free market, companies and businesses will do what is necessary to survive. If that means outsourcing some U.S. legal jobs for the greater good of survival of the entity itself, then so be it. The model of ever increasing salaries and expenses for law firms followed by even higher legal fees charged clients cannot sustain itself any longer. Legal outsourcing is here to stay. The wise will take notice, survive and flourish.

Martin L. Sandel, formerly a trial lawyer of more than 25 years experience, is President & CEO of SENDLAW.com. SENDLAW.com assists companies and law firms in exploring, evaluating and implementing appropriate legal outsourcing options. Further, Mr. Sandel advises law firms on how to incorporate an outsourcing group practice without negatively impacting law firm morale or culture. SENDLAW.com frequently travels to India to investigate, interview and evaluate legal outsourcing providers on behalf of clients of its corporate and law firm clients. For further information visit http://www.sendlaw.com or http://www.legaloutsourceadvisors.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Your Legal Rights in a Living-Together Relationship - Common Law Marriage

This article is intended for anyone involved in a long-term, committed relationship, who has never been formally married, and wants to know his or her rights. Whether your relationship recently ended, it's in crisis, or you just want to know whether being formally married makes a difference in this day and age, you'll probably be surprised by what the law provides.

One common misconception is a belief that there is little legal difference between marriage and living together. This sometimes arises out of the mis belief that after a period of cohabitation (frequently believed to be seven years), a living-together relationship is instantly metamorphosed into a common law marriage. This myth, though it has the persistence of urban legend, is pure fiction. In truth, you cannot enter into a common law marriage within the boundaries of New York State. And, common law marriage has become less and less favored across the nation over the past hundred or so years.

According to my most recent research, there are only ten jurisdictions that continue to recognize common law marriage (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and the District of Columbia), and five others that do so, but only if the relationship was established prior to a certain date (Pennsylvania, Georgia, Idaho, Ohio and Oklahoma). There are a few countries that also recognize common law marriage, or a status similar to common law marriage.

Here in New York, common law marriage has not been legally sanctioned since 1933. But the inquiry doesn't quite end there. There are several states, New York being among them, that recognize common law marriage relationships that were established while the parties resided or sojourned elsewhere, namely in one of the aforementioned common law marriage jurisdictions. So, despite the abolition of common law marriage in 1933, our courts continue to recognize common law marriages that were established in other jurisdictions. And, this may be the case even where the couple only temporarily sojourned in such jurisdiction, all the while maintaining their domicile in New York.

In such instances, the court's determination of whether a common law marriage was established will hinge on the legal standards of the particular state where the parties sojourned. These standards and precedent vary from state to state. And, contrary to common law marriage folklore, common law marriage states look to more than just whether the couple attained their seventh year of living together.

Some legal factors that are considered significant in common law marriage states are: (i) the amount of time spent in the state; (ii) whether the parties "held themselves out" as husband and wife; (iii) whether they functioned as an economic entity; (iv) whether they ever entered into an agreement stating their intent to be considered married (even though they never formally wed); (v) whether either of the parties was married to someone else at the time; and (vi) whether the parties actually physically resided together. Lastly, in each of these states, historically you've needed to be of opposite sexes.

Contrastingly, factors that typically won't be considered significant (factors I might contend bear more directly on notions of fairness) include (i) sacrifices made by either party in entering into the relationship (what lawyers call "detrimental reliance"), (ii) the standard of living enjoyed by the parties, (iii) whether one partner might not be able to sustain that lifestyle after separation (or even support himself or herself period), and (iv) whether there were children of the relationship.

This issue most recently garnered public attention in New York when the prominent film actor, William Hurt, was brought into court by his then ex-girlfriend, an actress and dancer by the name of Sandra Jennings. The decision in that case underscored, among other things, how crucial issues of credibility can be.

The common law marriage jurisdiction involved was South Carolina, where the parties had sojourned during the filming of "The Big Chill". The crux of Ms. Jennings' claim was that during an argument, Mr. Hurt told her that, "as far as he was concerned, we were married in the eyes of God", that they had "a spiritual marriage", and "were more married than married people." Mr. Hurt, for his part, denied ever making these statements. There was also uncontradicted evidence that the parties never held themselves out as a married couple, even while cohabiting on location in South Carolina. On the other hand, the parties did have a child together.

In the appellate court decision, which dismissed all of Ms. Jennings' causes of action (Jennings v. Hurt, 554 N.Y.S.2d 220), the Court made particular note of the following facts: (i) that Ms. Jennings had never mentioned any conversation regarding an alleged "spiritual marriage" during her pre-trial deposition; and (ii) that a document, which Ms. Jennings had allegedly signed her name to as "Hurt", was in fact an altered copy on which the name "Hurt" had been inserted.

As to the legal showing that was required under South Carolina law, the Court held that a common law marriage proponent must establish "an intention on the part of both parties to enter into a marriage contract...with such clarity on the part of the parties that marriage does not creep up on either of them and catch them unawares." The evidence on this point, i.e., factors suggesting that neither of the parties considered themselves to be married, or held themselves out as such, also seemed to favor Mr. Hurt.

Another illustration of how difficult it can be to establish a common law marriage in a non-common law marriage state such as New York, involves one of my cases, which I'll call A vs. A (I represented the claimant putative common law wife). In A vs. A, believing strongly in the case, we chose to first proceed solely under a common law marriage cause of action, forsaking in the first instance pleading non-marital causes of action, so as not to weaken the common law marriage claim. Subsequently, with permission of the Court, we added several non-marital causes of action to Mrs. A's complaint. It was these claims, rather than the common law marriage cause of action, that ultimately served as her basis for recovery.

I am sure you will understand, from even a brief recitation of the facts, why we initially believed that Mrs. A's case for common law marriage was a strong one. Most strikingly, Mr. and Mrs. A held themselves out as a married couple for more than thirty years. They also raised a child together (by then a grown woman), who was always led to believe that her parents were duly married. Each party wore wedding-style rings on the appropriate finger. In fact, no more than a handful of close friends and family ever knew the parties were not formally married. They were referred to in every writing, every joint account, every tax filing, etc., as Mr. and Mrs. A. And, Mrs. A had even legally changed her last name to A fifteen years earlier, upon becoming a naturalized citizen.

Further, Mr. A always told Mrs. A that they had no need to formalize their marital status, allegedly because they were in all respects a married couple. According to Mr. A, what was "his was hers", and when they "got old", they would get formally married. Needless to say, that day never came. Indeed, on the precipice of retirement age, Mr. A initiated their separation. By then, they'd established a more than comfortable lifestyle (including residence in a $1.5 Million penthouse apartment), a lifestyle that Mrs. A certainly couldn't maintain on her own. And, all that Mr. A was initially offering to Mrs. A was a $50,000 per year stipend, for which in return he asked Mrs. A to quietly walk away from their thirty-plus year relationship.

The parties had also traveled widely, though they lived within the same borough of New York City for the entirety of their relationship. Yet, fatally to Mrs. A's claim, the only common law marriage jurisdiction that they had traveled to was Washington, D.C. On this point, the Court's decision, granting Mr. A's motion for dismissal of the common law marriage cause of action, focused on the District of Columbia's requirement that the parties to an alleged common law marriage must have done more than just cohabited as husband and wife; they must have cohabited after expressly agreeing, "in words of the present tense", to become "man and wife".

Rejecting our arguments, the Judge held that this agreement must have been actually and explicitly stated while the parties were physically present within the confines of Washington, D.C. It was inconsequential that the parties had explicitly made this kind of an avowal elsewhere. Because Mrs. A could not assert that she and Mr. A explicitly made this kind of an avowal, or even reiterated it, while physically present in D.C., her cause of action was deemed inadequate. Notwithstanding, Mrs. A prevailed in that portion of the Court's decision that refused to dismiss several of her non-marital causes of action.

Conclusion

If you've concluded that your relationship might meet the legal criteria for common law marriage, I strongly recommend that you speak to a lawyer (preferably a family law specialist). And, for advice that you can rely on, you should plan to set aside at least a few hundred dollars for the cost of a consultation and additional legal research. The good news: if your relationship is found to be a common law marriage, you will generally have the same rights and obligations as every other divorcing spouse in this State.

On the other hand, if you've determined that your relationship is unlikely to qualify for common law marriage treatment (even though it may be one of significant financial interdependence), then I suggest that you read Part II of this article, which discusses a variety of other legal concepts that may be applicable to your living-together relationship.

c 2008 Jonathan K. Pollack all rights reserved

Jonathan K. Pollack is an attorney admitted to practice in New York State (1992), and a partner of the firm of Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, located in NY, NY (since 2002). His area of practice is matrimonial, family law, the rights of unmarried cohabitants, and alternative dispute resolution in these practice areas. He is a graduate of Columbia College, NY (1987), and Tulane Law School, LA (1992). He has served on the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Family Court and Family Law and on the Inter-Disciplinary Forum on Mental Health and Family Law. He is also a member of the Association for Conflict Resolution, and completed divorce mediation training sponsored by the Academy of Family Mediators in 1996. He has experience handling cases in Supreme and Family Courts in all five boroughs of New York City, as well Westchester and Nassau counties.

The firm's website is at http://www.blhny.com

Mr. Pollack's bio section is at http://www.blhny.com/attorney.cfm/ID/17

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Legal Analysis: Civil Law is Easier than Common Law

There are two legal traditions that work as foundations to all-out administration of any country in the world; these legal traditions are; civil law and common law traditions. This is one of the reasons why each country's legal education as well as any sort of administration are not the same and also one of the reasons why we cannot reach our abstract aspiration: "the world law." This article will reveal which tradition is easier in term of education and enforcement.

Civil law is easier than common law in both, terms of learning and enforcement, but why?

From the very outset, civil law tradition is a "writing tradition." Writing means every law or any nationwide effective administrative rule are written down and followed by printing in hard copies (books, journals, periodicals or other media publication) and even the fastest facilities: the internet. Writing makes the learners, the fellow citizens as well as the law enforcement officials easy, because they are able to find the law anytime and anywhere (library, bookstore, newsstand home library, etc) with or without the help from the expert in the field; in contrast, I do not think this ease applies to the common law countries. Above all, civil law is not as complicated like the common law where law or decision is flexible in accordance with the case.

One of the instinctive eases of civil law is that even the person whose brain is totally white with law or any social systematic complication can understand and it is much easier for serious law students who make to clarify or deeply understand and surprisingly, for the law enforcement officials.

The fact that civil law is a written tradition does facilitate me as a law student as well as others, because most of the times I do not need the expert in the fields to explain me every encountering difficulties; everything is literally and clearly written down in the books.

Furthermore, civil law also facilitates judge in making the decision, because he or she must follow a very stern system which are already stipulated in the books. Not just the judge, all the three institution (legislative, executive and judiciary) and the fellow citizens can easily follow what stipulated in the books; this would dramatically ease the conflicts of institutional and private interests.

The case that everything is written down in the civil law traditions, reveals me that it is easier from students from common law countries to study or practice laws in civil law countries, but it is extremely hard for civil law learners or lawyers to study or practice laws in the common law traditions, because civil law is easier to learn than the common law.

This article does not intend to underestimate common law tradition or promote the image of civil law tradition, but just, based on the author's opinion, to reveal the truth as well as other reasons why each country in one region, continent or different region and continent are still, in term of social administration, are different or very different.

I have been living in Cambodia, a civil law country, for more than twenty years, this would make me very accustomed to this system (civil law tradition), but I strongly feel that my supporting sentiment is right. What do you think? May be I am wrong, because I am not deeply familiar with the common law tradition, if it is so, let the argument begin!

Lay Vicheka is a translator for the most celebrated translation agency in the Kingdom of Cambodia, Pyramid Translation Co.Ltd.. He is now hoding other two professions: freelance writer for Search Newspaper; focusing on social issues and students' issues and Media Liaison Officer for Asia's first free on-line IELTS consultation website. Lay Vicheka is the expert author for ezine and prolific article contributor to other websites around the world such as articlecity, 365articles, spiderden, talesofasia, etc (Just google him). He is also a volunteer Cambodian-newspapers columnist (Rasmey Kampuchea and Kampuchea Thmey). Lay Vicheka has great experience in law and politics, as he used to be legal and English-language assistant to a Cambodian member of parliament, migration experience (home-based business) and in writing. He is also member of a New York-based research company. Posting address: 221H Street 93, Tuol Sangke quarter, Russey Keo district, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Tel: 855 11 268 445, vichekalay@yahoo.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.