I am positive that if you did a poll of every lawyer in the U.S. and asked them a simple question: Are you in favor of outsourcing legal work to other countries such as India?, the vast majority would not be in favor of it. Indeed, they would be strongly opposed.

But in terms of overall solutions, I think (a), (b), and (c) are kind of red herrings. Something I said in my original comment: there’s all kinds of legal work and all kinds of skills, talents, and personalities needed for it. What’s needed therefore is (d), to allow for these different kinds of work and talents to match themselves more fluidly. And that doesn’t happen when there are all sorts of arbitrary barriers to entry; when there are all sorts of avoidable economic pressures; and, most of all, when there is so much disrespect *within the profession* towards its practitioners.

This thread is testament to the consequence of that disrespect, because instead of being focused on specific solutions to the doc review conundrum to make it more sustainable, we’re mired in debate about whose world view is right. We’d be better served by a more pragmatic discussion.

For instance, re: offshoring, does the ABA rule reconcile with the duties courts are expecting of firms during the discovery process (see, e.g., Qualcomm v. Broadcom)? What kinds of changes could be implemented to make domestic doc review more economically feasible for everyone? (E.g., should we eliminate staffing agencies? Should we limit firm mark-ups on doc review work? Should we pay overtime?) There’s plenty to talk about that could result in solutions, but as long as we’re all throwing stones at each other they’ll never happen.

One of the first lessons that I learned is how much of the stuff you are saying is wrong. It is not about my wanting to suceed alone. There has to be an environment in which sucess is a realistic possibility.

Yes, we part company here other than agreeing desire is not enough. Execution, understanding the economic landscape and navigating through it is what is needed to succeed. Trading in your ideas of what you’d like to do for understanding what is needed and then pursuing a business are critical. You have to work with the world you live in…not the world as you’d like it to be. Every business is undergoing transformation. Those who transform live; those who don’t die. If you have an idea for a business which simply cannot work in this current world, then of course it must fail. Your desire to succeed will not alter this. But your desire to succeed can push you into directions that will work when you allow for the possibility.

In David Scott’s fantastic book ‘Tuned In’ he describes why businesses succeed where others fail. And the most important reason for failure is creating a product or service no one wants even though you think it is great. You invest your time, money, heart and soul. But if no one wants it, the product is packaged wrong and marketed to the wrong target audience, no amount of desire to succeed will make it a success. If you work inward out, find what the market is truly lacking, understand what is needed from the perspective of your potential buyer, you will create a product or service that resonates with this audience.

It is no different with creativity in the practice of law. Using the perspective of someone who worked through the ‘systemic failure’ of this system of contract/document review is important for those who are still within the system feeling helpless. It is not illogical or conservative. But to be trapped into what is ‘likely and probable’ stifles ideas, does not nurture them and keeps people trapped in feelings of helplessness while maintaining a miserable status quo.

People generally want to take personal responsibility and others have to help them to do so if they ask. Life is about choices, not always the obvious choice between great and not so great, but between two not so great choices. But they are still choices that can and must be made. No one is trapped unless they choose to be trapped.

I also agree with much of what you say about mandatory bar associations and CLE requirements. In fact, when DC was considering a mandatory CLE, I wrote in opposition for many of the reasons you articulate.

But when you say that Susan and I are glib, I think you are not looking at what we have each tried to accomplish to help lawyers over come the contract lawyer conundrum. For Susan, the concept was SPU because people can take classes and interact with colleagues without losing their day job. Maybe that is not enough in your view, but it is a start.

As for me, I am well aware of the contract lawyer conundrum. I have grappled with it for some time, and posted some ideas at my blog back in January offering specific ideas for how lawyers could try to transition out of contract work. http://www.myshingle.com/2009/01/articles/trends/the-contract-lawyer-conundrum/ To be sure, my suggestions may be unrealistic, but quite frankly, I’ve not seen anything more concrete from the contract lawyering blogs.

Most of the “solutions” I see at the contract lawyer blogs involve (a) requiring the ABA should force law schools to be transparent about post-graduation job opportunities; (b) making the ABA prohibit offshoring to keep contract jobs in the US and (c) requiring temp agencies to pay benefits and provide training.

As to option (a), I agree that the ABA should do more in checking stats and also, stop accrediting so many law school. That may help stop the flow of new grads into the market, but it will be years before the reduction has any impact (you’d think that current job stats would deter people from going to law school, but they’re STILL applying in droves, hoping to “ride out the recession.”)

As to argument (b)(prohibiting off-shoring), not sending jobs overseas just prolongs the inevitable. The bottom line is that there are too many lawyers and contract work is diminishing because of technology. In 3 years, these doc review projects will probably utilize 1/3 of the number of people they are using now with or without India. Moreover, even if jobs aren’t sent overseas, in an economic downturn, there’s no reason to expect that people will pay more for contract lawyers. First year associate salaries have finally (and sensibly) gone down? Why would’nt rates in other parts of the market do the same?

As to argument (c), (pay benefits & insurance), during boom times, temp agencies were offering insurance options to lure canddiates. But because of the economy, it’s a seller’s market and temp agencies don’t have to pay benefits to get lawyers to fill slots. Sure, it’s rude, but it’s also a business. Besides, what kind of training are temp companies going to provide? Are they going to train people in litigation or corporate transactions? Doubtful, because it doesn’t serve their goals (all it would do is give temp lawyers the tools to leave the job).

I can understand that contract lawyers may never want to start their own firms, and agree that in many situations, doing so is very difficult, if not impossible. But at least the so-called solo cheerleaders are trying to come up with other options even though they may be difficult. What kinds of solutions are the contract lawyers coming up with to help themselves now?

What is at the core is that there is no “bootstrap” as defined by the way Americans think of it in the global economy. There are no rugged individuals.

Indeed, if you do try to go it alone as Americans define it, you will soon be out of business. I am a newly minted businessman. One of the first lessons that I learned is how much of the stuff you are saying is wrong. It is not about my wanting to suceed alone. There has to be an environment in which sucess is a realistic possibility.

Social networks and societal structures are absolutely critical to whether or not a business suceeds or not. The anger you are seeing concerns the breakdown of those structures in favor of the insanity that produces the meltdown on Wall Street, educational costs growing at several times the rate of inflation and spiralling out of control healthcare costs. Of those, if you asked the people here what bothers them- it is the broken contract of how one can not even trust our educational system not to con us. Could we forsee this, and then, act accordingly. Maybe, but that means that our society is surrendering to absurdity where there are no societal structures. It is absurd because when compared to other advanced countries this places us at a competitive disadvantage.

We can not, for example, accepted reduced wages not because we don’t want to, but because we have been settled with debt just to be able to even be qualified for the position in America, but you can go abroad, and this is not the case. This is like tying both our legs, and then telling us to race in the Boston Marathon. It is simply not reality. What you will find is a lot more failures because the structure is set up to produce more failures.

This does not absolve people of the responsiblity of trying, but it does not absolve our system of the fact that it is set up cause failure. One point does not negate or change the other. What they do is enhance our understanding. Your posting about some person able to overcome the situation is what conservatives often do when faced with issues of systemic failure: they point out the lucky few. It is illogical. But, it is meant to say, “See it is possible.”

Except we are not discussing what is just possible, we are discussing, as I am learning as a business man, what is likely and probable. This is the cornestone of understanding our society.