For example, DLA Piper asked nSource to manage a “captive operation” for it in an off-site location in Tampa, Fla. Bryant says that some law firm functions that were at first thought of as requiring attorneys on site actually were susceptible to being done off site by contract employees. One of them, in DLA Piper’s case, was conflict checking – a crucial function that a law firm must undertake before it takes on a new matter.
“We distinguished between the strategic and the tactical aspects of conflict checking,” Bryant said, “and we found that the tactical, day-to-day aspects could be done off site. By doing so, we reduced the firm’s costs for this function by 50 percent, and we also achieved a 50 percent decrease in the time required to hire a new conflicts analyst and bring him or her up to speed.”
nSource did this by carefully studying the conflict checking process – what steps were involved, who did them, and how long each step took. After completing this process mapping, it was able to advise its client, DLA Piper, on how to outsource that task.
Bryant said DLA Piper’s leaders were so pleased with the way outsourcing worked in the conflict checking arena that they expanded it to other functions as well, saving money, increasing efficiency and improving the way the tasks were done.
Legal marketing, like conflict checking, has aspects that are highly strategic and can’t easily be outsourced. But, DLA Piper and nSource found, it has many routine aspects as well.
“Although there are some people in marketing who really need to be near the lawyers,” Bryant said, “when you think about all the external and internal communications demands on a marketing team, the RFP responses, the responses to honors and awards submissions, these can be leveraged and done in a centralized way, off site. For DLA Piper, we moved to a factory-like setting, where they really churn these things out. We placed rigor and precision around an area that has historically been chaotic.”
In similar ways, nSource has set up outsourced offices for other functions such as library services and human resources for DLA Piper and other clients.
The new world of legal outsourcing does however raise some new management issues. The challenge of managing subcontractors is familiar in other professions. The 11th edition of Harold Kerzner’s widely quoted textbook, Project Management, has an entire chapter devoted to working with external suppliers. The perspective is interesting, since the chapter makes it clear that a firm using an external source for some of its work on a matter is now in a role reversal. The firm is a client of the outsourcer it has hired, and has the same responsibilities to monitor that outsourced supplier that its own client has to monitor the firm’s work.
If XYZ Corporation has hired your firm for a matter, the legal department of XYZ had the job of hiring you in the first place and has the responsibility to monitor your work. Similarly, if you hire supplier DIS for discovery work, you had the job of hiring DIS in the first place and then you have the responsibility of monitoring DIS to assure that their work product is acceptable. The law firm is responsible for the entire work product, and must make sure that all the parts work.
Lawyers are just starting to become familiar with the idea of subcontracting work, and the use of outsourcers presents new challenges.
As Mark Ross noted in a paper entitled "The Ethics of Legal Outsourcing", “It is clear that to satisfy the duty of competently representing one’s client, a US lawyer engaging a legal process outsourcing provider cannot rely on the provider to evaluate its own work product and must himself or herself be able critically and independently to evaluate the work product received.”
Oversight can be complex. For example, consider the eDiscovery technique of predictive coding. Unlike simpler forms of eDiscovery—such as keyword search, concept searching, and looking for clusters of similar document groups—in predictive coding attorneys train software algorithms to find the most relevant documents by using samples of documents called training sets. According to Predictive Coding for Dummies (p. 8):
Training the predictive coding system is an iterative process that requires attorneys and their legal teams to evaluate the accuracy of the computer’s document prediction scores. If the accuracy of the computer-generated predictions is insufficient, additional training set documents are selected from the document population being considered. Multiple training sets are reviewed and coded until the required performance levels are achieved. Once the desired performance levels are achieved, decisions can be made about which documents to produce.
The great advantage of this approach is that attorneys will be able to explain the decisions made by the computer, since they worked to train the computer algorithms. This can satisfy the obligation of competent representation, so long as things are properly done. But there is always the danger that things will not be properly done. Predictive Coding for Dummies (p. 11) goes on to say:
Understanding how to use predictive coding tools properly is critical for several reasons. First, predictive coding is relatively new to the legal field and introduces additional complexity to the eDiscovery process. Second, many different predictive coding solutions are available on the market that vary in quality and approach. Third, even though predictive coding solutions can be difficult to use, clear instructions and training are often lacking, which can increase the risk of error. These and other factors have combined to create confusion about the proper methodology for using predictive coding tools.
The message is clear: A firm that uses predictive coding cannot rely on it as a black box that gives right answers at all times. Not all providers are equal. There must be a procurement process that evaluates and selects an appropriately qualified provider.
Competent representation includes understanding and monitoring the provider’s work. If that does not happen, the law firm may be at risk.
Due to the growth in outsourcing, in 2008 the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued an opinion to provide ethical guidance to lawyers about how to outsource in a manner that is consistent with the profession’s core values. State and local bar associations have also offered guidance in this area.
In August 2012, the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 concluded that outsourcing did not require changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. However, it did propose new Comments to identify the factors that lawyers need to consider when retaining outside lawyers (Model Rule 1.1) and non-lawyers (Model Rule 5.3) to assist on a client’s matter. The Commission also proposed a new sentence (for Comment 1 on Model Rule 5.5) to clarify that lawyers cannot engage in outsourcing if it would facilitate the unauthorized practice of law.
Like many obligations described in the Model Rules, these proposals were intended to be “rules of reason” and were not intended to preclude consideration of broader legal concerns, such as malpractice and tort liability. But they did reflect the fact that new trends in outsourcing place new demands on the supervising lawyers.
This series was adapted from the fourth edition of the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide which will be published this fall.