Bar & Bench News Network
The State of Connecticut has introduced a Bill, prohibiting the outsourcing of the drafting, review or analysis of legal documents. The Bill proposes that the practice of law includes drafting, reviewing, or analyzing legal documents for clients in the State of Connecticut and any person who performs such acts and has not been admitted as an attorney in Connecticut will be committing the offense of the unauthorized practice of law.
The Bill proposes to prevent foreign law firms and corporates from off-shoring the drafting, reviewing and analysing of legal documents to workers overseas. This could impact the Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) sector in India. The statement of purpose of the Bill, clearly states that outsourcing of legal document review to non-attorneys constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
The Connecticut Law Tribune quoting the Connecticut State Rep. Patricia Dillon said, “There is a quality issue here and also a jobs issue. The licensure of teachers and health professionals is often not portable across state lines in this country, yet some legal work is being done abroad with no quality oversight”.
The most common scenario is that a large corporation, wanting to cut legal costs, forces law firms with which it does business to send document review work overseas to places like India for a fraction of the cost. The reasoning behind passing of such a Bill lies in Dillon questioning the people, and the training behind the legal work, which is being outsourced.
Legal Blogger, Lisa Solomon states in her blog that this sloppily-drafted bill (“legal document review” is a completely different animal than drafting legal documents or conducting legal research, which are also encompassed by the bill’s language) ignores the substantial body of principled analysis of the issues surrounding legal outsourcing in favour of facile protectionism that won’t cure the legal profession’s real ills. Lisa further states that the Bill is inconsistent with the unanimous acceptance of outsourcing by ethics authorities outside Connecticut and it doesn’t address the real issues faced by unemployed Connecticut lawyers.
The ET quoting Sanjay Kamlani, co-CEO of LPO firm Pangea3, said, “the proposed Bill seeks to stop the flow of high-end and sophisticated legal functions to India. This is happening at a time when US law firms are increasingly looking at LPOs strategically, as long-term partners, to offer more value to their clients. A lot of legal work from financial services, IT and entertainment sectors is coming to India from New York, New Jersey, California, etc. Some US attorneys familiar with the LPO model have called it "a sloppily drafted bill'' that ignores the substantial body of principled analysis of issues surrounding legal outsourcing in favour of facile protectionism that won't cure the legal professions real ills.
While some States like Ohio continue to support and approve outsourcing, the State of Connecticut has decided to oppose it.
|
 |
- 1. "Perhaps the process is different elsewhere, but proposed bills in Connecticut are concepts raised for public hearing. Proposed house bill 5083 Link is not "sloppily drafted," since that is not draft language at all.". Rep. Pat Dillon, Connecticut General Assembly, Hartford CT
- 2. "Its is for the American law makers to decide what is best for their countryfolk; there really isn't much a non_American can say on the subject and its implications in America. But from a business perspective it seems the person behind the draft should go deeper into the financial implications for an already recession hit legal practice in the states. This post might shed light on what I'm talking of-Link point being that " ......key problem is that the supply of attorneys has far outstripped market demand."And so a restriction in work (of the nature with w/c LPOs are concerned) wouldn't make an impact on the amount of work an attorney would be concerned with. Unless jobless attorneys are willing to work as Paralegals in the US.". Viceroy, Chandigarh
- 3. "Shall this not be considered while making decision for entry of American Law Firms in India specially when President ABA is of view that their lawyers shall be allowed in India for practice.Regards". AK, New Delhi
Related Stories
- Amarchand, AZB, J. Sagar top 3 Indian firms, says Rainmaker survey
- Bar Council logs in with Rainmaker: Bar Exams, Law School in every state, Oppose Foreign Law Firms
- Six Indian firms in the top 10 in Dealogic report: Luthra tops the list
- Economic Times: Indian law firms shying away from best friend relationships?
- DLA Piper says its focus is more on opportunities from Indian business and technology and is not looking for local Indian work
- Travers Smith’s restructuring may benefit Indian LPOs
- Recruitment Tracker: NLIU Bhopal witnesses multi-faceted Placements from top law firms, corporate houses, LPOs & PSUs
Other News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (2)
Webmasters: AIKYA