Legal Jobs Guide

A major concern for law firms that are considering whether or not to take the legal process outsourcing (LPO) plunge is that of data protection. Client confidentiality is so rooted in the legal culture, and is such a fundamental aspect of professional legal ethics, that the mere notion of a pair of eyes glimpsing data from across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans sends shivers up the spines of many lawyers. Yet the ironic part is that there is a group of entities whose obsession with security issues may make that of attorneys seem a trivial thing - the outsourcing companies themselves. The building and maintaining of relationships with current and future clients is the lifeblood for service providers.

As outsourcing becomes more widespread and competition in the marketplace grows, the ability to illustrate the existence (and continued use) of powerful safeguards will increasingly become one of the significant factors for companies that are deciding which provider to link up with. Consequently, the leading outsourcing companies take security concerns extremely seriously, which may explain why many domestic studies have shown that the outsourcing process is no less secure, and may in fact be even more secure, than having the same services performed in-house.

Process fidelity is definitely necessary in the legal arena, but this needs to be placed in perspective. While legal documentation does sometimes consist of sensitive information, the sensitivity often stems from the defining characteristics of litigation and practice procedures. Law firms are no different from other companies in that they do not like to have their business practices broadcasted to the general public. However, concerning the type of damage that can be caused by leaking of information, legal data is in general substantially less sensitive than other types of data that have been outsourced for years on a massive scale. When the fact that large banks, financial institutions, and even the IRS are outsourcing on an extended basis, the entire issue of data protection insofar as LPO is concerned is put into clearer perspective. Suddenly, summons and complaints and discovery materials take on a whole new light when attorneys digest the fact that extensive credit histories, records of financial transactions and tax forms are being processed by the millions overseas.

However, this is not to say that legal information should not be afforded the highest degree of protection, especially regarding issues of conflict of interest. The legal community is one that is tightly bound together and thrives on the flow of information between affiliates and adversaries. On a regular basis, members of the defense bars network with members of the plaintiff bars. Moreover, many of the same lawyers frequent the same courtrooms in the same venues, and attend the same continued legal education courses and alumni events. Thus in order to be supremely effective, outsourcing models must place great emphasis on separation of competing interests.

The question therefore becomes: How can a law firm be assured that they are not outsourcing work to a company that is also working on the same matter for opposing counsel? While the chances of this happening may be somewhat slim, it is still a viable concern. The fact that most providers are obligated to keep the identity of their clients confidential makes it difficult for a firm to ascertain whether a current adversary is outsourcing work to the same provider.

Protections for the outsourcing firms can certainly be put into place. First and foremost, the contract between provider and client should make it absolutely clear that the provider must inform the client as soon as it learns of any possible conflict issues.

Second, the firm should make sure that the provider it chooses is able to clearly articulate - and, if possible, demonstrate - the security safeguards it has implemented to ensure the validity of the process. These safeguards should be included in the statement of work agreement, in list format, along with the additional provision that the security devices must be maintained for the breadth of the contract. Thus determination of liability of the contracting parties for any security breach that results in measurable damages will be easier to ascertain.

Third, due to the fact that technology and business procedures must often become intertwined in order for the outsourcing process to run efficiently, the security program used by the vendor should exist on both the physical and virtual levels for it to be as comprehensive as possible. It would be somewhat contradictory for an outsourcing company to rely on the fact that the production staff for two adverse law firms exists in separate offices, on separate floors or even in different cities. The very premise behind the outsourcing process is that physical separation is not a complete bar to the sharing of information - as such, a company cannot on one hand praise the concept that geographical differences are no longer barriers to the exchange of information and data, while relying strictly on geographical barriers as the only security measures put in place by the company. There is no doubt that physical separation of the production staff for adverse businesses is a good step; however, virtual separation is needed as well in order to create a robust security model.

Important questions that law firms may need answered before an outsourcing program is initiated include: How does the provider structure their production units? Are these units separated, and if they are, along what lines does the separation occur? What is the architecture of the physical premises where the work takes place? What kind of office equipment exists in that location? What types of things are prohibited from being brought to the work site? What tracking and auditing features are used in the technology that allows the process to take place? Who is responsible for the tracking and auditing? The general rule of thumb is that if the question is important enough for the attorney to ask, then it should be included in the written contract.

Once the above questions and issues are addressed to the inquiring firm’s satisfaction, the ties can be loosened and the dress shoes put on the desk, because one major aspect of the outsourcing phenomenon has been resolved. True, other issues do abound, but this one is a biggie. If the security concerns can be alleviated, then one huge step has been taken towards reaching the ultimate goal of commencing a mutually beneficial business relationship.

About the author: Stefan Belinfanti is a licensed attorney whose professional legal background includes experience in the areas of insurance litigation, labor law and civil rights law. As a legal consultant, he has developed blueprints for implementation of legal process outsourcing models for several law firms. Stefan is currently an Operations Manager for Vidhi Technological Services (Vidhi Tech), a provider of software and support services for law firms and other industry-specific businesses. More on LPO can be found at http://www.vidhitech.com/legalfirm.aspx

Share This

If you have been denied new credit because of your existing bad credit then you will save time and money by following these three steps.

1. Explains WHY your credit repair rights are legally protected.
2. Describes WHERE you should begin to start your credit repair actions.
3. Dictates HOW your credit repair actions should be performed for maximum effectiveness.

1. Further your understanding of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). These Federal rules, regulations and guidelines have to be followed by consumer reporting companies - Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion in order for them to be consumer reporting companies. Specifically for our purposes we will focus on three parts of the (FCRA)

1. Read FCRA Section 611(a)(1)(A) which states:

   “If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.”

2. Read the FCRA Section 611(a)(3)(A) which states:

   “…a consumer reporting agency may terminate a reinvestigation of information disputed by a consumer under that paragraph if the agency reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure by a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.” The law requires that an agency notify you within 5 business days if they determine your dispute to be frivolous or irrelevant. The law does not dare to define what is grounds for making such a determination except for “failure by a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.”

3. c. Read the FCRA Section 611(a)(5)(A) which states:

   “Historically, an item that was deleted would occasionally reappear on a consumer’s credit file. This occurred when a credit grantor automatically updated a consumer’s payment history. Most often this happened with a credit granter with whom the consumer still had payment activity. However, the new FCRA does not allow a deleted item to be added again unless the creditor certifies that the information is correct.”

2. Take an active role in maintaining an improving your credit by getting your free credit report.

1. The FCRA requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies - Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion - to provide you a free credit report, at your request, once every 12 months.
2. You can order three ways

1. Online at www.annualcreditreport.com
2. On the phone 1-877-322-8228
3. Annual Credit Report Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281.

   You need to provide your name, address, Social Security number, and date of birth.

   Tags: credit history repair, credit rebuild, credit repair yourself, legal credit repair, self credit repaircredit history repair, credit rebuild, credit repair yourself, legal credit repair, self credit repair

   Share This

Starting a business with one or more partners - even based on a written “Partnership Agreement” - may be the worst possible ways to structure a business. It’s certainly the least desirable, and possibly the most financially dangerous. There are more advantageous forms your business can take, among them two types of corporations, plus something called a Limited Liability Company of LLC.

To set the record straight, I’m certainly not an attorney, nor am I in the business of dispensing legal advice. But as someone who’s been involved in - and burned by - a couple of partnership ventures gone sour, I do have opinions. I’d like to share those with you here if you’ll let me.

Most would-be partners see themselves going into business with friends or family members. Many times those involved have known each other for years. But knowing someone for a long time is not the same as knowing them well. At least not well enough to become partners with them. But that’s only the first drawback.

Drawback #2: Many would-be partners believe they can put a deal together with little more than a verbal agreement and a hand shake. Wrong! The only safe way to do it, if do it you must, is with a detailed written Partnership Agreement. One drawn up by an impartial attorney all partners agree on.

Drawback #3: Even before you get to that point, you should know that partners can be held jointly and severably liable for the obligations of the partnership. Simply put, that means either or all of you may be liable for all the liabilities of your business. Everything from accounts payable to judgments against the business, including obligations for which you as an individual may not be responsible at all.

That could wipe out some or all of the personal assets of each of the partners. But let me paint you a worse case scenario. Drawback #4: Partner A has only modest means, a simple home and car, along with a spouse and children. Partner B is extremely wealthy. Large home, fancy car, summer place, stocks, bonds, IRAs, the works.

Their business goes belly up for some reason, leaving behind huge financial liabilities and other obligations. Creditors take the partners to court in an effort to collect. A multi-million dollar judgment is rendered in favor of the creditors, and the court lays claim to the assets of the partners.

Partner A can lose his simple home and car, but once their gone he has nothing more the court can lay claim to. So they turn to Partner B to collect the balance of that multi-million dollar judgment. And to satisfy that judgment the court sells off his large home, fancy car, summer place, stocks, bonds, etc.

They might have been “equal partners,” but there’s nothing equal about what they stand to lose. If only because partners can be held personally liable for the obligations of their business - jointly and severably, meaning individually and collectively - I suggest you think long and hard before becoming involved in a partnership arrangement, even one spelled out in writing.

But why bother with a partnership at all when becoming a corporation or starting an LLC can spell out equally well the terms of the business arrangement, and at the same time significantly reduce or eliminate the aspect of personal liability altogether? It’s certainly something worth thinking long and hard about.

© 2006, Philip A. Grisolia, CBC

Phil Grisolia is an accredited Certified Business Communicator (CBC), author, educator, business coach, and an award-winning copywriter. His latest book, a 137-page how-to ThinkBook

Share This