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.

By: Stefan Belinfanti, Esq.

The author is a licensed attorney who has practiced in the fields of commercial litigation, insurance law and civil rights law. He has also implemented legal process outsourcing models for for several law firms. More on LPO can be found at http://www.vidhitech.com/legalfirm.aspx..

Presented as a Legal Resource by Resources For Attorneys.

Before you can make a decision as to whether or not you should hire a personal injury attorney / lawyer, you first have to know what a personal injury case is.

Most people think that a personal injury claim is a car or motor vehicle accident claim. While an injury sustained in an automobile accident where another was at fault would be a personal injury claim, there are many other matters that also fall under that heading.

A personal injury attorney / lawyer handles matters where there has been a personal injury, either physical or emotional, which was caused by the negligence of another. If there was no negligence then there is no case. There must be negligence, whether intentional or unintentional, on the part of another, for a claim to be valid. In other words, you would have trouble making a case against your landlord, where you spilled water on your kitchen floor and then slipped and fell because of the water. However, if the landlord had failed to fix the plumbing under your sink and the water was on the floor because of leaky plumbing then you may, I say may, have a case. There are other variables that could come into play and you would need to seek the advice of a good personal injury attorney, in order to determin your rights.

There are many matters other than car accident matters that can many times be included under personal injury, IE: slips and falls, workplace accidents (after a workplace accident you may be covered under workers compensation or disability but you may also have a personal injury claim), injuries caused during a storm or power outage, airplane, bus and train crashes, construction accidents, fires, food poisoning, drug or vitamin overdoses, animal bites, getting beat up, robbed or otherwise injured inside or outside of a business, medical malpractice and even malpractice by an attorney.

There are many variables that can come into play in determining negligence and many times you may think that there was no negligence on the part of anyone when there actually was. I myself, know of a case where a party was struck by a car while riding a motorcycle and injured severely. He settled with the driver and the driver's insurance company for the $100,000.00 maximum of the driver's insurance policy. This settlement did not even begin to cover his medical bills. Some time later, a personal injury attorney, while speaking with a member of the injured party's family, found about the case and was asked to look into it for the family. The injured party was broke and paralyzed. The attorney did some checking and then agreed that, even though the man had accepted the settlement, there might still be a case. He then hired my detective agency and another to do further research. Finally, he filed a law suit against the car driver, the drivers insurance company, the motorcycle manufacturer and others. I won't go into the whole case, but suffice it to say that he went to trial and ended up obtaining a verdict against several of the parties, including the drivers insurance company and the motorcycle manufacturer, for several million dollars and the injured party is no longer broke. I might add that the attorney took the case on contingency and advanced, out of his own pocket, all of the expenses including court costs and investigation fees.

The point of the foregoing is that if you have been injured, you should seek the advice of a competent personal injury attorney even if you don't think that there is anyone at fault. Only a good experienced personal injury attorney can attempt to make that determination.

This article was written by David G. Hallstrom, Sr. for and copywrited by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory listing personal injury attorneys, with websites, in California. Permission is given to reprint this article provided that it is reprinted whole and unedited, that credit is given to both the author and California Personal Injury Attorneys.us and that all links contained herein are kept live and working.

Furnished by Resources For Attotneys, a legal and lifestyle resource.

If there is one area of law that seems perfect for implementation of a technology-based legal process outsourcing (LPO) paradigm, insurance litigation might just be that field. Of course, "perfect" is a loaded term, and anyone throwing that word around without quantifying it at all should probably be looked at with a raised eyebrow. Perhaps a more accurate hypothesis would be stated as follows: There are some core features of insurance litigation that lend themselves extremely well to various the tech-heavy LPO models that are currently out there.

The first feature of insurance law that justifies use of an LPO model is that of volume... more specifically, many subtypes of insurance fields are driven by paperwork. Documents, claims, policies, legal papers - they build and build until a new mountain range is formed to rival the Andes. Whether we're talking motor vehicle insurance (no-fault, liability insurance, property damage, etc.), Workers' Compensation insurance, health insurance, or one of the other biggies, an overabundance of documentation seems to be an inescapable part of life for involved businesses. Data entry and document management are familiar terms often used to describe methods of handling the paperwork. My experience has been that, since data entry and document management are the cornerstones of many successful outsourcing enterprises, it makes sense to have these services performed in a manner that is cost-effective. Without the clerical activities to bog them down, insurance companies, health facilities, law firms and other actors relevant to the insurance industry can focus on their core business practices.

Another feature is that of work specialization. The way insurance is regulated in the various states makes insurance-based litigation a prime candidate for LPO. For example, if you're dealing with no-fault insurance in one of the no-fault states, such as New York, chances are there is one main set of regulations that govern how claims and related issues are to be addressed. While it is true there is often interplay between various "types" of insurance (i.e. no-fault in New York uses the Workers' Compensation fee schedule), the insurance litigation field tends to be rather striated, allowing lawyers and paralegals located offshore to gain familiarity with the issues involved in steady increments. Moreover, insurance claim forms and policies generally don't suffer from wide variation in substance. Though contract based, litigation stemming from policies of insurance are powered not so much from speculation regarding whether there was a meeting of the minds of the parties involved, but rather whether the static provisions and conditions as stated in the policy require reimbursement in each individual case.

Yet another aspect is that of differing technological capabilities. This is not simply a case of: He who wields the most RAM wins. However, as many attorneys can personally attest to, the fate of cases can certainly be influenced if one side had a technological edge over the opponent. An example of this is as follows: let's say a plaintiff firm serves an insurance company with dozens of summary judgment motions in one week. When those motions come into the defense counsel's office, what happens next? Are they filed away in accordian files and Redwelds, or are they scanned into a computer system? Does the attorney or paralegal handling the case have to request the file from a file room located on a different floor or building, or does s/he just punch a few keys in order to bring up the images of the documents that belong in that file on the monitor? When it comes time to oppose those motions, are the opposition papers drawn up from the orthodox technique of cutting and pasting Word-based templates, or is there a template generator that automatically populates data, including case citations and legal arguments, from the system? Regarding exhibits that need to be attached to motions, are they done so manually or does the software system automatically annex them? Naturally, these questions merely scratch the surface of the impact that technology can have on the outcome of legal matters, but they do provide a glimpse into how the worlds of law and technology can combine to form a powerful package.

There are numerous other considerations, such as cost per matter, storage expenses, and service and filing by electronic means; however, these topics will be covered in subsequent articles. Hopefully this article has provided you, the valued reader, with a fair degree of insight into the subjects discussed.

By: Stefan Belinfanti, Esq.

The author is a licensed attorney who has practiced in the fields of commercial litigation, insurance law and civil rights law. He has also implemented legal process outsourcing models for for several law firms. More on LPO can be found at http://www.vidhitech.com/legalfirm.aspx.

Presented as a Legal Resource by Resources For Attorneys.

Electronic communication enables us to expedite communications and quickly exchange information. Yet, there is a price to pay for ease of use. Most companies typically have well established guidelines regarding hard copy documents. There are policies that guide the communication as well as destruction and retention. Electronic communication presents a different type of challenge for companies but one that they cannot afford to ignore.

To frame the discussion one must first consider the sheer volume of electronic communications. In example if a company has10,000 employees and each employee sends only one email per day that would result in 200,000 emails per month! Prior to the availability of email, employees were not so prolific. It is hard to imagine that any one company would have typed and mailed 10,000 letters per day.

The volume alone represents a unique challenge. Electronic documents including email are generally discoverable in lawsuits. As such there is a need for clear cut use and retention policies. Email can be the final nail in a legal coffin. How does a corporation control such a massive amount of information to ensure that they are not unduly exposed to legal risks? What policies govern the use of company email? How long should electronic documents be stored and subsequently open to discovery in a legal dispute?

Corporations are still evolving in their approach to the email dilemma. The solution will depend on the company culture, its risk profile and their available resources. Companies have every right to establish policies that limit email communication to business only. While this may seem unfair to employees, it is the company that will bear the full impact of litigation that results from or involves employee email communication. Some companies have gone as far to block internet access, enforce business use only policies and monitor email communications. Others have no policy or one that is not clearly enforced.

Implementing and monitoring email use can be a difficult challenge. Ultimately, it requires employees to comply with the established policies. Some employees feel it is an undue burden to completely restrict email to business use. They may argue that they may need to communicate with family members, sitters or even take care of personal business during the work day. Again, each company will have to set forth policies that are appropriate for their company culture.

One of the unique problems of electronic communication is the prevailing casual attitude toward them. People often hit the send button without considering that electronic communication does not vaporize into cyberspace but lives on in perpetuity. In no other media is it so clear that your words can come back to haunt you. People do not generally exercise the same amount of caution as they would in hard copy documents. Can you imagine someone taking the time to copy an off color joke and mailing it to all of their friends on the company’s stationery? Yet, this goes on everyday in the typical business environment. Many employees may not understand the risk of inappropriate communications. Companies may also not realize the potential exposure. During the Hurricane Katrina crisis, then head of FEMA, Michael D. Brown was thrust into the public spotlight due to email communication. His inter company emails which focused on his attire rather than the crisis at hand cast FEMA in a negative light and ultimately forced Brown to resign from his position. In the famous Microsoft case, the justice department used emails written by Bill Gates to support allegations that Microsoft was unfairly using its monopoly to drive away competition. In lesser known cases, employees have brought sexual harassment and racial discrimination lawsuits against their companies with email as a key component of their claim.

As electronic communications are discoverable in a lawsuit, the question of retention also needs to be addressed. How long should a company store emails? Most organizations have opted to retain email for thirty to ninety days. Here again, it will largely depend on the company culture. In limiting the retention, you are also limiting the discovery of potentially harmful information. Unlike hard copy documents which are often stored for several years, company servers inherently limit the time that emails can be stored. However, a company should have a clear written policy that is specific to electronic retention. A few email programs enable you to set reminders that documents will be deleted. This however, will only apply to electronic documents stored on the company’s email server. If employees have moved emails to a hard drive or removable media, this use of technology will not help. The company policy should include guidelines about moving and storing documents outside of the company server.

And most companies routinely backup servers and archive those backups offsite. This is good IT policy but creates another point of legal vulnerability. Backup retention policies must also be clearly defined. And, contrary to popular belief, when you hit the “delete” button, your email or document isn’t really gone. Using readily available technology, “deleted” files can be easily recovered unless the storage medium was “wiped” clean.

Lastly, make sure employees understand that they have no right of privacy for email any more than they do for letters and calls. Those emails to your boyfriend or girlfriend can be read by your superiors with no explanation necessary!

In the post-Enron world, companies must have a clearly defined and monitored policy around electronic communication use and retention. It is equally important to ensure that employees understand the need for compliance. As with all risk management, it must become embedded in the company culture to have the highest rate of success and compliance. Finally, policies must evolve to keep pace with the growth of the technology itself. As organizations extend the access of electronic communication to mobile devices, it is certain that new challenges will continue to arise.

By: Richard A. Hall
Richard A. Hall is founder and President/CEO of LexTech, Inc, a legal information consulting company. Mr. Hall has a unique breadth of experience which has enabled him to meld technology and sophisticated statistical analysis to produce a technology driven analytical model of the practice of law.

Featured as a legal resource by Resources For Attorneys.