Outsourcing to India draws Western Lawyers
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/0...
"I'm one of those U.S. lawyers who outsourced himself to India. I did not do it for lack of a job elsewhere. I'm a Columbia Law graduate and one of the founding partners of a successful New York and London-based media law firm. I went to India enthusiastically, to take part in a much-needed revolution in the way legal services are delivered in the West. Imagine a new legal landscape where high-quality services are affordable. Imagine deals getting done, because the attorneys don't kill them, with overlawyering and overcharging. Contemplate court cases and other disputes being resolved on their merits, rather than simply on the basis of whether one side cannot or will not pay the absurdly high costs of litigation. Think about legal professionals located in places that suit the interests of clients, rather than in the most expensive parts of the most expensive cities in the world. Consider the resultant savings when legal bills are based on services, not real estate. Envision deals and cases staffed by the most talented and enthusiastic lawyers available. Open your mind to the possibility that some of those lawyers are in India. I know from experience that they are.
..."
Imagine a new legal landscape where high-quality services are affordable. Imagine deals getting done, because the attorneys don't kill them, with overlawyering and overcharging. Contemplate court cases and other disputes being resolved on their merits, rather than simply on the basis of whether one side cannot or will not pay the absurdly high costs of litigation. Think about legal professionals located in places that suit the interests of clients, rather than in the most expensive parts of the most expensive cities in the world. Consider the resultant savings when legal bills are based on services, not real estate. Envision deals and cases staffed by the most talented and enthusiastic lawyers available. Open your mind to the possibility that some of those lawyers are in India. I know from experience that they are.
And consider the fact that this kind of outsourcing actually creates more legal jobs in the West, rather than cutting them. Every time a deal is done, or a litigation is waged, because legal services are suddenly affordable, it means more work for the Western lawyers involved in supervision, editing, negotiating, and/or appearing in court. This is not only a dream. It is happening every day, thanks to legal outsourcing in India.
For example, a Fortune 100 client of my law firm specifically requested that the legal research and analysis needed for a series of multi-million-dollar deals in the U.S. be done by Indian attorneys at our offshore operation in Mysore. This is a situation where, if not for a Western law firm’s off-shoring capabilities, no lawyers would have been hired, because typical Western legal fees would have made it prohibitive. The work would have been done either in-house, or not at all. Because the India team made it possible for the deals to happen, Western law firms ultimately got more business, handling the otherwise non-existent transactions.
A similar phenomenon has happened in litigation, where corporate clients have chosen to defend themselves against meritless lawsuits, using both U.S. and Indian lawyers. The most high-profile examples are some of the cases filed in Los Angeles against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen. They have been dismissed instead of settled, because of the successful teamwork among attorneys in the U.S. and India. Without legal outsourcing, there might have been no U.S. lawyers hired for any significant litigation work at all, because frivolous cases often are settled at the outset, just to avoid the usual U.S. litigation costs. The off-shoring of legal work is leading to a new breed of benign tort reform, as defendants facing bogus or inflated tort claims are choosing to litigate and win. This in turn discourages such claims. And the money that otherwise would be spent by defendants on nuisance payouts can be plowed by corporations right back into the U.S. economy.
Does any of this threaten the existence of U.S. law firms? No, unless you want to define American law firms as inherently dinosaur-like, and incapable of changing to avoid extinction. No, the threat is not to law firms themselves, but to an outmoded model of law practice that clients increasingly will not tolerate. We are witnessing the start of a positive, paradigm shift in the way that legal services will be delivered in the West.
Some law firms are embracing the change, and reaping rewards from it. One example is our own law firm. As a result of setting up our own legal outsourcing company in India, our law firm is receiving more client revenue, not less. This is coming in part from (a) existing clients who send us “elective” legal work that otherwise would never be performed, due to cost, but which is not a problem when our U.S. lawyers are paid only to supervise and edit the work of attorneys in India, and (b) new clients who come to our law firm only because of our reputation for developing an alternative to the old model.
So there is no need to start making funeral arrangements for the U.S. legal industry. Forward-thinking law firms will adapt, embrace legal off-shoring, and learn how to make it serve not only the interests of their clients, but their own.
Russell Smith SmithDehn LLP SDD Global Solutions http://www.sddglobal.com
I can imagine some pretty interesting international litigation arising from this!
"Employees at legal outsourcing companies in India are not allowed by Indian law to give legal advice to clients in the West, no matter their qualifications. Instead, legal outsourcing companies perform a lot of the functions that a junior lawyer might do in a American law firm."
Given that they're not giving legal advice, I can't see them assuming the risk of professional negligence claims.
I believe the average case in India's civil courts is over 5 years and I would guess most companies are judgment proof and insurance won't cover outsourced work.
I've started to think about outsourcing as a long-overdue redistribution of wealth & as such I'm not opposed to it: if you can work more efficiently by outsourcing, you should outsource. Most employees in the West are spoiled brats & deserve to be shaken a little anyway.
How do you prove this?
We don't require you to cite sources.
Whenever I come back from a developing country I think "We're fucked & we deserve it". People in developing countries are just as capable & ingenious; they are more likely to work hard because they see a path of progress in front of them. In the West we have become so accustomed to our luxuries that instead of working harder, we settle for the status quo far too often.
Many have been shaken a lot by the effects of outsourcing.
* All airlines are like RyanAir
* All restaurants are fast food
* All supermarkets are Lidl
* All music is Autotune
* All clothes are polyester
What?
It's like this, if people who were earning enough to afford a decent sized apartment in a safe neighborhood with enough left over to eat out once in a while are all fired and replaced by overseas workers; their disposable income spending goes away too. And thus all of the businesses that were dependent on their being customers go away too.
This may be bad for the lawyers and people in India who need legal services, but it's good for everyone else.
Yes that is the theory, but in practice I've yet to encounter a situation where outsourcing is as seamless as that. Generally communication overhead goes up and quality of service goes down. Ask anyone who's ever been put through to an outsourced call centre. Or spent more time writing a spec for an outsourced IT worker to implement 10 timezones away than it would have taken them to do the work themselves.
The only people outsourcing is actually good for is those managers who are going to get a bonus for saving money this year and no downside in five years when the friction between the parts of the organization has reached the level that it seizes up and everything has to be brought back in-house.
Guys, if you want to start arguing against outsourcing, you're gonna have to start making economic sense. It's a hard position to take--and very few economists take it--because it is very hard to economically justify protectionism.
Right now I'm picturing some hacker sitting in Indonesian-made clothes, typing into his Chinese-made keyboard with ICs from Taiwan (or wherever) angry posts about how globalization is destroying our economy and depriving us of value. Meanwhile, the average wage of the low-class Chinese worker (as an example) rose 17% over the last year.
Outsorcing is just globalization continued. And the people who complain about the low quality of outsourced labor remind me of Doc Brown in "Back to the Future", in a scene set in 1955: "No wonder this circuit failed... it was made in Japan..."
There are already signs this is happening; Nat West (a UK high street bank) are now advertising "only UK call centres". Now, it doesn't matter one little bit that their cheque processing is done in India, that is, to borrow a bit of programming jargon, referentially transparent. That is just one example.
So what I am afraid of? I am afraid of being personally inconvenienced by the interests of the organizations I transact with being further misaligned with my own. In other words, it's a tragedy of the commons scenario. So I know it will fail. I just don't see why we have to go through the pain first when there's no need.
In fact, when it comes to drugs, I bet the majority of people people on this website would support legalization of at least some drugs, and allow people to make their own bad decisions. But we're still poisoned with the notion that companies in market economies in general have to be prevented from making sub-optimal decisions. Why? Why do people still think this?
Gambling is an entertainment product; it's no more or less a suboptimal use of money than going to the movies.
Over the past 20-30 years, we have outsourced a huge amount of labor to other countries, and we outsourced even more of it to machines. And yet, we are more prosperous, have more consumer goods, and we generally eat out more often. Why is that?
(Incidentally, I generally find that the truck food is superior to restaurant food in Jersey City. I love thetacotruck and the H1B cart isn't bad either. Au Bon Pain, meh.)
Also, part of living in a capitalist society is you have no right to tell other people how to spend their money.
Some routes I fly are only serviced by Ryanair, and I sometimes see business travelers who buy two seats so they can put their work next to them. No doubt they, or at least their companies, are delighted at how much money they're saving compared to BA. I keep meaning to ask one, are you working so hard so you can take your family on holiday to Butlin's in Skegness?
Sure, we should know our place like good little slaves, right? Hauteur and arrogance are not a valid basis for rational argument.
As for infrastructure, I recently rode on the recently completed Wuhan to Guangzhou high-speed railway, cruising at average speed of 330km/hr, now the fastest railway in the world.
India beats China regards reliability of legal system, though many Shenzhen-based ventures use Hong Kong for legal activities. And of course India's internet is more open.
Although quality of life in the whole of India or China is less than in the West,
quality of life in a well-defined portion (e.g. city area) of these
developing countries will often be competitive, e.g. Dalian in China.
China doesn't seem to have the the crime problems of many larger Western cities, or the "no-go zones" of US cities, but of course the price is less freedom.
Many Westerners though enjoy living in a different environment, such as India or China, for a few years anyway, though not many would want to spend the rest of their lives there.
Overall, it seems most Chinese I talk to in China would emigrate to the US, Canada, or Australia if they could [though I admit my sample is skewed, i.e. Chinese who take the trouble to approach me to talk in English].
Why would moving to a cheaper area improve your quality of life? If living there costs less the pay will be less as well. This wont hurt you with commodity goods too much because those will be cheaper but the things you'll probably like to have won't be much cheaper. For example, an iPhone 4 isn't going to come unlocked for $99 just because you're in India.