18 December 2011 — As we reported a few weeks ago, the A.B.A.  has been peppered of late with a number of accusations over its failings, not least of which is that it has not done enough to prevent law schools from overstating the current job prospects of graduates.  As expected, it caved into the demands of law schools with a watered down proposal.  We reported on this in an earlier post with several links to the law schol debt issue and the economics of law school.  For that earlier post here.     

Further, there has been a heated exchange between Cooley Law School and the organization Law School Transparency about the economics of going to law school.  You can see those links by clicking here.

And in today’s New York Times a brilliant piece on the incestuous relationships between the A.B.A., the law schools and the legal community.  As you read it we are sure you will feel like you are reading the story of Opus Dei in The Da Vinci Code, the history of the House of Medici, the workings of Tammany Hall and the Spanish Inquisition … all rolled into one.  For the full New York Times piece, click here.

5 December 2011 – It was a lovely press release:

      “The [ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission] is fully committed to clarity and accuracy of law   school placement data.  As a result of these changes, future law students will be better informed about their prospects than ever before.”

They even approved a new annual questionnaire intended to gather more detailed information about where recent law grads find work.  But the new questionnaire does not include all the changes that transparency advocates have been pushing for.  Law School Transparency — a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve consumer data for law students — has called upon the ABA to publish school-specific salary data that would allow prospective law students to see how much graduates of each school earn.  As with the old questionnaire, job and salary data will not be reported together and school-specific salary data will not be released publicly. Instead, each school will report the three states in which the largest number of its graduates finds jobs.

For a review of the ABA action from the National Law Journal click here.

For more about Law School Transparency click here. 

And for one of our previous posts which addressed many of these issues click here.

This is an element of the argument that law school is a bad decision which rests on two givens: the enormous debt incurred by most lawyers, and the lack of opportunity.   People rack up an average $92,000 in debt because of the implied promise of a high-paying job at the end.  For most pundits, a massive portion of law school applicants are extremely ill-informed about the career prospects resulting from a law degree.  

We covered all of these points in a post last year which you can access by clicking here.

And for a recent article on the law school debt bubble from AmLaw Daily click here.

15 November 2011 – As we have written before (our most recent post is here) the most common complaints from the contract attorney world is that the work is mind-numbing and monotonous, affording none of the intellectual stimulation that a lawyer should expect.  There is often little or no quality control.  What supervision reviewers get usually has more to do with the schoolroom than with the law office, and generally focuses on production levels, tardiness, talking, number and length of breaks, etc.  Under those demoralizing conditions, mistakes are inevitable, and careless, unprofessional work is common. The result is the infamous McDermott case which has become a prime example of the myriad ethical problems in modern, assembly-line document review.   

Expanding on this theme, but with much more detail and with positive suggestions about what can be done and should be done, is Lawrence Chapin, an attorney with forty years experience in the law who has been working, for the last eighteen months, as a contract review lawyer on projects in New York City and Richmond, Virginia.  He is also a recent graduate of the e-Discovery Team Training program run by Ralph Losey.

In a special post on Ralph’s blog, Larry emphasizes that contract reviewers should become/can become more valuable to a project when they are wisely employed in a project.  Their talents and potential contributions to a project are often wasted.  

We all know that technology is driving much of the drudgery in document review.  But technology has become so important to the industry.  We recently attended the two premier corporate counsel events of the year, the IQPC Corporate Counsel Exchange in Amsterdam  and the Association of Corporate Counsel annual meeting in Denver which we will detail in two lengthy posts in the next two weeks.   Between the two events we had the opportuntity to chat with 35+ corporate counsel (we’ll include some video interviews in our upcoming posts) and discussed everything from the new role of corporate counsel, the overall need to reduce corporate legal spend, third-party funding of litigation, privacy issues and social media, and … most importantly … the technology they have brought in-house to control e-discovery cost and the technology their outside attorneys and consultants use overall for e-discovery.   One of the overriding themes from both events was:  “yes, we need lawyers (both in-house and temporary) but lawyers who are data geeks!!”  And by that they meant attorneys who can handle the technical aspects of modern legal data analysis, who have some computer science background, statistics and math skills, who have or can learn the skills for legal data visualization, imaginative ways to turn legal data into actionable intelligence. 

So could technology help to redeem the contract attorney industry?  Larry seems to think so.  He makes numerous excellent points and we urge you to read his full analysis.  For the full post click here.

Electronic Evidence Consultant

Company Overview

Kroll Ontrack provides technology-driven services and software to help legal, corporate and government entities as well as consumers recover, search, analyse, produce and present data efficiently and cost-effectively. In addition to its award-winning suite of software, Kroll Ontrack provides data recovery, advanced search, paper and electronic disclosure, computer forensics, ESI consulting, and trial consulting and presentation services.  Kroll Ontrack is a technology services division of Kroll Inc., the global risk consulting company. For more information about Kroll Ontrack and our offerings please visit: http://www.krollontrack.co.uk/.

Position Overview

Working within the Kroll Ontrack Legal Technologies group and working on Electronic and Paper disclosure projects this role will have responsibility to analyse, scope, price, follow-up and play a key part in presenting solutions for customers of Kroll Ontrack’s Legal Technologies business.  Coordinate strategy and activities with Legal Consultants.  Prepare business opportunities for a smooth transition to the Legal Technologies Project Management group.  Perform other duties as required such as demonstrating software and associated benefits.

Essential Functions

• Analyse, scope and price business opportunities in the Legal Technologies business
• Present and explain our service offerings to clients in a consultative manner
• Provide technical guidance in evaluating business opportunities
• Coordinate with Legal Consultants in opportunity analysis
• Represent the Legal Technologies business as the key technical liaison between various stakeholders:
  • Customers
  • Project Management Group
  • Operations Group
  • Computer Forensics Group
  • Legal Consultants
• Consult as needed with internal departments including engineering, sales and business developmen
• Provide technical consultation as needed for Legal Technologies clients
• Create and follow up on proposals and coordinate with appropriate stakeholders in closing business opportunities
• Develop and deliver proposals and cost/time estimates
• Follow up on proposals and coordinate with Legal Consultants in closing business opportunities
• Be proactive in helping Legal Consultants develop deeper relationships with Legal Technologies customers
• Assist with and participate in trade shows as needed
• Meet with clients and travel onsite as needed.

Required Business Travel Requirements 

• Up to 20% UK and foreign travel maybe required. 

Skills and Experience 

• Ideally a degree in related I.T. technical or business field, or equivalent work experience
• Demonstrated track record of accurately scoping and pricing technology projects
• Experience of working in a solutions professional services environment
• A knowledge of Electronic Disclosure principles (desirable but not essential)
• Experience of working within the legal profession (desirable but not essential)
• Advanced analytical and oral communication skills
• Strong writing and public speaking/presentation skills
• Ability to work independently with minimal supervison
• Ability to handle multiple projects and manage conflicting priorities
• Ability to effectively communicate with business leaders and collaborate with cross-departmental representatives
• Advanced time management and organisational skills
• Advanced communications skills, including listening, written, spoken, presentation and influencing
• Ability to make effective and persuasive speeches and presentations on controversial or complex topics to top management, public groups, and/or boards of directors
• Advanced PC skills utilising various software applications
• Ability to respond effectively to the most sensitive enquiries or complaints
• Ability to calculate figures and amounts such as discounts, interest, commissions proportions, percentages, area, circumference and volume

Ending Statement

Job descriptions are not intended, and should not be construed to be all inclusive lists of responsibilities, requirements, or working conditions associated with a job. While the job description is intended to be an accurate reflection of the job requirements, management reserves the right to modify, add, or remove duties from particular jobs as it deems necessary.

 Please submit CVs to: recruitment@krollontrack.co.uk and in the Subject line of your email note “Electronic Evidence Consultant – Presales”.

 

Business Development Consultant

Company Overview

Kroll Ontrack provides technology-driven services and software to help legal, corporate and government entities as well as consumers recover, search, analyse, produce and present data efficiently and cost-effectively. In addition to its award-winning suite of software, Kroll Ontrack provides data recovery, advanced search, paper and electronic disclosure, computer forensics, ESI consulting, and trial consulting and presentation services.  Kroll Ontrack is a technology services division of Kroll Inc., the global risk consulting company. For more information about Kroll Ontrack and our offerings please visit: http://www.krollontrack.co.uk/.

As a result of continued growth, Kroll Ontrack seeks a dynamic Business Development Consultant to join our Business Development Team in Farringdon, London.

Position Overview

In this high profile role you will initiate and manage direct sales/marketing efforts with targeted large law firms and corporations to increase revenue and build brand loyalty around our E-Disclosure products and services. This individual would also be responsible for generating new legal and technical contacts in law firms and corporations to foster relationships and assist in project strategy and consultation on electronic evidence industry updates.

Responsibilities

• Sales and marketing activities are broad-based and include new business prospecting, management of existing accounts, networking, and occasional public speaking.
• Using established lead generation methods, and developing and implementing prospecting methods, generate and close new project opportunities in order to achieve revenue goals and personal objectives.
• Management of customer expectations and ensuring that the highest level of education and consultancy is available.
• Facilitating and conducting on-site seminars and presentations at prospective or current customer sites.
• Liaison with all internal departments to ensure that opportunities are maximised with customers.
• Attend industry exhibitions, conferences, seminars and networking events.
• Ad-hoc duties as may be required.
• Some UK and foreign travel maybe required. 
• Previous account management and business development experience
• Experience in a consulting environment or capacity is a plus
• Direct knowledge and/or experience in litigation, regulatory investigations/disputes, insolvency, competition and anti-trust law would be an advantage as would an understanding of Electronic Disclosure software tools
• Strong presentation skills
• Strong computer skills with a good working knowledge of customer relationship management software
• Must have listening skills with the ability to clearly understand needs and discuss business value propositions
• Effective and assertive communicator, with strong relationship building and excellent interpersonal skills
• Strong introduction skills via telephone and face-to-face meetings 

Required Business Travel Requirements 

• Some UK and foreign travel maybe required. 

Skills and Experience 

• Previous account management and business development experience
• Experience in a consulting environment or capacity is a plus
• Direct knowledge and/or experience in litigation, regulatory investigations/disputes, insolvency, competition and anti-trust law would be an advantage as would an understanding of Electronic Disclosure software tools
• Strong presentation skills
• Strong computer skills with a good working knowledge of customer relationship management software
• Must have listening skills with the ability to clearly understand needs and discuss business value propositions
• Effective and assertive communicator, with strong relationship building and excellent interpersonal skills
• Strong introduction skills via telephone and face-to-face meetings 

Ending Statement

Job descriptions are not intended and should not be construed to be all inclusive lists of responsibilities, requirements or working conditions associated with a job. While the job description is intended to be an accurate reflection of the job requirements, management reserves the right to modify, add, or remove duties from particular jobs as it deems necessary.

Please submit CVs to: recruitment@krollontrack.co.uk and in the Subject line of your email note “Business Development Consultant – E-Disclosure”. 

10 August  2011 — One of the more contentious issues in e-discovery is the value of e-discovery certification.  Rebecca James, Esq. (Program Manager at Fios, Inc.) has been running a series on that topic.   As she points out while “there was skepticism and a lack of consensus on the importance of credentialing … minds were generally open to this growing trend.”  The series covers all views, pro and con, and includes all the leading experts and pundits in the e-discovery world. 

Part 1 queried lawyers on the topic (click here) 

Part 2 queried litigation support leaders (click here)    

Part 3 is the feedback from the leaders of the credentialing organizations and a look inside the e-discovery certification programs (click here).

And for a good source of e-discovery material access the Fios Knowledge Center (click here).

1 August 2011 – Over the weekend we posted an update on the McDermott e-discovery malpractice case involving contract attorneys, vendors and privilege.  The case involves a allegedly botched privilege review.  For that post click here. 

The response from the List was enormous.  We received 980+ emails commenting on our post and the case.  

We have written a number of posts about the technological changes that have reshaped the legal industry (we hesitate to call it a profession) with a focus on what Richard Susskind, Ralph Losey and Jordon Furlong (among others) have wriiten about these past few years:  the deep and rapid technological advances (of the disruptive kind) that have led to relentless connectivity, the burgeoning electronic legal marketplace and the “decomposition of legal tasks” into component parts that can be delegated to various sources: in-sourcing, relocating, offshoring, outsourcing, subcontracting.  It has led to reducing costs for repetitive processes such as regulatory filings, document review, etc.  It has simply commoditized large sections of the law, especially document review. 

The law simply became another business, just a Law Factory.  It took the precepts of Clayton Christensen’s The Innovators Dilemma who introduced one of the most influential business ideas of our time — “disruptive innovation”, penned in 1996.   In the case of document review law firms adopted the cost-saving manufacturing principle of “just-in-time” production, and applied it to a service industry: hire attorneys “just when you need them” but only on a short-term, part-time basis.  And to make it even further removed from any hint of a profession move it to “managed review” and document review centers and out of the realm of law firms.

Result?  The McDermott case.  As many of you wrote, this case is a prime example of the myriad ethical problems in modern, assembly-line document review.   

And that’s what document reviews are today: performance under under assembly-line conditions by temps (not always lawyers) who often work 60 or 70 hours a week, ten or twelve hours a day, at rates ranging from $12.50 to $35 an hour (for English-language reviews) who are summarily fired if they fail to meet arbitrary production quotas. 

As several of you wrote:  “the work is mind-numbing and monotonous, affording none of the intellectual stimulation that a lawyer should expect.  There is often little or no quality control.  What supervision reviewers get usually has more to do with the schoolroom than with the law office, and generally focuses on production levels, tardiness, talking, number and length of breaks, etc.  Under those demoralizing conditions, mistakes are inevitable, and careless, unprofessional work is common.” 

A large number of you  pointed out reviews in DC and New York where reviewers were improperly instructed on privilege by  junior associates and/or case administrators who obviously did not know the difference between the attorney-client privilege and the attorney-work-product doctrine.  The general response?  Above our pay grade.  Don’t target yourselves by pointing out that masses of privileged communications that will be produced as a result.   We need this job.

The “schoolroom” working conditions and poor training can only be demoralizing for lawyers and will do nothing but produce indifference to standards of “professional” competence.

And as several of you said “instead of addressing these problems by improving working conditions, quality control, etc., the legal staffing agencies seem to be responding by requiring temps to sign indemnification agreements, whereby the temps agree to hold the agencies and their clients, the law firms, harmless against all claims arising out of the temps’ work”.  Normally, employers buy liability insurance to cover the errors and omissions of their employees.  This oppressive tactic reverses that arrangement, and makes the individual employee the insurer of his or her employer and its client. 

And let’s face it:  temps aren’t paid enough to cover malpractice insurance, so those who sign such contracts are simply hoping nothing bad will happen.  The McDermott case names 100 John Doe lawyers as defendants, presumably referring to the temps who worked on that review.  But one good thing is that according to Hudson they do not require temps to sign indemnification agreements.  If they had, those 100 John Does would be looking at the possibility of thousands of dollars in personal liability, for which McDermott’s malpractice insurer would certainly pursue them.  Remember that when asked to sign an indemnification agreement.

The case slogs on.  We keep you up-to-date best we can.

DIHK- Deutscher Industrie- und Handelskammertag e.V.

Berlin / Brüssel

Der Deutsche Industrie- und Handelskammertag e. V. (DIHK) übernimmt als Dachorganisation der 80 deutschen Industrie- und Handelskammern (IHKs) im Auftrag und in Abstimmung mit den IHKs die Interessenvertretung der deutschen Wirtschaft gegenüber den Entscheidern der Bundespolitik und den europäischen Institutionen. Zugleich koordiniert er das weltweite Netz der bilateralen deutschen Auslandshandelskammern (AHKs) in 80 Ländern.

Im DIHK suchen wir zur Unterstützung unseres Teams im Bereich Recht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt jeweils eine/einen

Volljuristin/Volljuristen (Dienstort Brüssel),

Volljuristin/Volljuristen (Dienstort Berlin).

Ihre Herausforderung

Als ausgewiesene/r Experte/-in verfolgen Sie im Referat „Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht“ mit Dienstort in Brüssel alle wirtschaftsrechtsrelevanten Entwicklungen auf EU-Ebene. Einen besonderen Schwerpunkt bildet dabei die Rechtsprechung des EuGH. Als kompetente/r Ansprechpartner/-in sind Sie für den intensiven rechtspolitischen Austausch mit den EU-Institutionen sowie anderen Organisationen in Brüssel verantwortlich. Darüber hinaus koor-dinieren Sie in Ihrem Kompetenzfeld die Zusammenarbeit mit den AHKs und IHKs in europarechtlichen Fragen.

Das Referat „Recht der Europäischen Union und Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht“ mit Dienstort in Berlin umfasst die Beratung in allen Rechtsfragen, die das Unionsrecht oder das Internationale Recht berühren. Die Klärung und Auseinandersetzung mit Grundsatzfragen gehört zu Ihrem Kerngeschäft. Sie entwickeln in Kooperation mit anderen Bereichen des DIHK abgewogene und umsetzbare Lösungsvorschläge. Ihre Fachkenntnisse, einschlägigen Berufserfahrungen und kreativen Ideen werden Sie in Stellungnahmen, Presse- und Fachtexten publizieren sowie im Kontakt mit wichtigen Entscheidungsträgern in Berlin überzeugend darstellen.

Ihr Profil

Sie haben das erste und zweite juristische Staatsexamen erfolgreich abgeschlossen und einschlägige Berufserfahrung gesammelt. Erforderlich sind für beide Stellen sehr gute Kenntnisse sowohl des deutschen wie auch des Rechts der Europäischen Union. Eine anschließende Tätigkeit in den Institutionen der EU und/oder in einem Verband mit europäischer Repräsentanz ist von Vorteil. Sie besitzen die Fähigkeit zum selbstständigen Arbeiten, ggf. nachgewiesen durch Promotion oder Publikationen. Überzeugende kommunikative Kompetenzen und Präsentationsfähigkeiten sowie ein sehr gutes sprachliches Ausdrucksvermögen sind Teil Ihrer persönlichen Kompetenzen. Sehr gute Englischkenntnisse sind unabdingbar, für den Dienstort Brüssel nach Möglichkeit auch gute Kenntnisse einer zweiten Amtssprache der EU.

Ihre Initiative:

Gehört eine eigenverantwortliche Arbeitsweise gepaart mit kreativem und lösungsorientiertem Denkvermögen zu Ihren Stärken? Sind Teamfähigkeit, Engagement und eine hohe Serviceorientierung für Sie eine Selbstverständlichkeit?

Sie erwartet eine abwechslungsreiche und anspruchsvolle Position in einer teamorientierten und freundlichen Arbeitsatmosphäre in Brüssel oder Berlin. Haben wir Ihr Interesse geweckt? Dann freuen wir uns auf Ihre Bewerbung! Besuchen Sie uns auch im Internet unter: www.dihk.de

Ihre vollständigen Bewerbungsunterlagen richten Sie bitte mit Angabe Ihrer Gehaltsvorstellung bis zum 21. August 2011 an:

Deutscher Industrie- und Handelskammertag e. V. (DIHK)

Bereich Personal

Stichwort: „Recht“

Breite Straße 29

10178 Berlin E-Mail: leifke.evelyn@dihk.de

30 July 2011 — As we had reported in a previous post, the world’s first e-discovery malpractice lawsuit was filed in State Court in California against McDermott Will & Emery.  The case has been rocketing around the internet, striking fear in the heart of the e-discovery community.  The case involves a privilege filter through which all the collected documents were reviewed that reportedly was botched and resulted in McDermott delivering to the US government “documents that were not responsive to [government] subpoenas and were also attorney-client privileged.”  An amended complaint has just been filed with more details about the review, the contract attorneys hired, etc.

For a summary of the case from the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists web site click here.

For some excellent analysis on the case (plus much more) from Ralph Losey (with some cool links to Lady Gaga) click here.

Position Title:  Applications Consultant

Department:  Operations

Reporting to:  Head of Client Services

UK Location:   Farringdon, London

Prepared Date:   June 2011

COMPANY OVERVIEW

Kroll Ontrack provides technology-driven services and software to help legal, corporate and government entities search, analyse, produce and present data efficiently and cost effectively. In addition to its award winning suite of software, Kroll Ontrack provides paper and electronic disclosure, computer forensics, courtroom services and data recovery. Kroll Ontrack is the technology services division of Kroll Inc., the global risk consulting company. 

ELECTRONIC DISCLOSURE APPLICATIONS CONSULTANT POSITION OVERVIEW 

The Individual will be responsible for working directly with our customers (primarily Law Firms and Corporate Legal Departments) to support Ontrack Inview, a proprietary tool of Kroll Ontrack. This role will involve the delivery of Ontrack Inview training, either on-site with customers, hosting customers at our London offices or remotely using a web-based application. The role will also provide electronic discovery review support and guidance using the Ontrack Inview application and troubleshooting of customer issues. 

Internally, the Application Consultant will work supporting Project Managers to ensure that the client maximises their use of Ontrack Inview to achieve their objectives. They will be responsible for the delivery of training internally for all new releases to the Project Management team of the Ontrack Inview tool and the dissemination to the team of any pertinent developments in the tool. The Application Consultant will also work with internal teams to monitor, support, and improve Ontrack Inview. 

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS & DESIRED RESULT 

Essential Function: Provide customer support including recommendations and best practices on electronic discovery reviewing techniques and search creations; the installation, configuration, and access to the Ontrack Inview application; and ongoing troubleshooting to resolve customer problems.

Desired Result: Provide clients with appropriate answers and prompt resolutions to problems and questions our customers may encounter utilising our applications. 

Essential Function: Deliver high quality training to customers on our applications via remote web conferencing tools.

Desired Result: Client Administrators and Reviewers receive the knowledge and ability to utilise our applications to successfully complete their project. 

Essential Function: Gain knowledge and expertise to be able to provide recommendations and improvements for both customers and peers to include Ontrack Inview functionality, best practices for support, review, and production set creation, along with creating appropriate documentation

Desired Result: Ability to deliver improved best practices, recommended Ontrack Inview features, and useful documentation that improve overall service delivered to customers, Project Managers, and peers. 

Essential Function: Provide internal training and orientation to members of the Kroll Ontrack team on our applications and new versions as they are released.

Desired Result: Kroll Ontrack employees are able to competently utilise our applications as well as learn about all new features added for each new version release. 

Essential Function:  Regular meetings with sales department in relation to the Ontrack Inview tool.

Desired Result:  Frequent improvements are made to the Ontrack Inview tool to ensure that our clients’ needs are met. 

Essential Function: Have a good standard of written and verbal skills where subject matter can be demonstrated and explained in a clear and accurate manner. Be able to assess and adapt communication style to the needs of the audience.

Desired Result: Training and Support will be delivered appropriately to the maximum benefit of the customer and internal Kroll Ontrack teams.

EDUCATION, SKILLS & EXPERIENCE 

•           Ideally a degree in a related field or equivalent work experience

•           Previous experience and/or training in application support, preferably a Litigation Support application

•           Experience in using the Microsoft Office suite of tools

•           Previous experience in giving training presentations to small and medium groups

•           Previous experience of training remotely using a Web-based application

•           Troubleshooting application user issues

•           Ability to manage multiple priorities and multiple tasks in a fast-paced environment

•           Solid written and verbal communication skills – ability to communicate with individuals at all levels 

BUSINESS TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS 

Travel is often required and may occur with very little notice. Travel typically involves same day or single overnight travel to client sites to conduct training and orientation on our applications.

This position will occasionally require after hours work and weekend work as part of a rotation.

Please submit CVs to: recruitment@krollontrack.co.uk