Onshoring (the opposite of offshoring) involves outsourcing work domestically.  The decision of many companies to move back to the U.S. is attractive because the dissolving differential in labor rates between the U.S. and countries such as India no longer offsets the costs that companies bear in risk management, supervision, transportation, and customer satisfaction when moving offshore.  Therefore, many companies are sending their work to small towns in the U.S. or to virtual America where the costs are low.

For example, the Los Angeles Times reports that Dell, Inc. once at the cutting edge of overseas outsourcing, opened a call center in Twin Falls, Idaho after customers complained about foreign workers' English-language skills.   Another company, California-based Northrop, Inc. saved about 40% by basing its technical support in Corsicana, Texas rather than in Los Angeles – achieving savings similar to those realized by sending the jobs overseas.   "We're getting very high quality and a dedicated workforce," said Thomas Shelman, President of Northrop's Information Technology Defense Group.   Similarly, consulting firm Accenture is building a document-processing center on an Indian reservation in Oregon.  "We're responding to the tremendous demand among Accenture clients for outsourcing services performed by professionals within the U.S.," said Randy Willis, a senior Accenture executive.  Many companies are recognizing that for projects that require a higher degree of expertise, American onshore providers offer a better deal.   For these reasons, many companies are reevaluating their decision to ship projects overseas, opting instead for U.S. based outsourcing companies.

There is, perhaps, no field more suitable for Onshoring than legal work.  The skill, knowledge, and experience of U.S. attorneys working on American soil is very attractive to companies looking to outsource. The costs are kept low because the work is done in small-town America or by internet-based companies; yet the skills of the U.S.-based attorneys are high.   Chicago-based McDermott, Will & Emery just got into trouble by using an outsourcing company that did not understand the nature of privileged documents.  Using U.S. attorneys who understand the nuances and complexities of U.S. legal arguments serves to ease the mind of the company who is outsourcing its legal work.  Furthermore, in the unlikely event of a problem, it is extremely beneficial to Onshore the work because the laws of the United States will be enforced.

For all of these reasons, Onshoring, the new LPO kid on the block, is here to stay.

A partner is hitting on me!  What should I do?

I have 2 memos due on Friday and another partner who has a reputation for being an offer killer just gave me an emergency project. What should I do?

I'm supposed to write a brief on informed consent, and I have no idea what that is.  Help me Professor Simon!

These questions always take me back to my days as a Summer Associate at a big Denver firm where I saw numerous fellow Summers making blunder after blunder on their way to a no offer Summer.  One Summer Associate blew off the end of the Summer shin dig at the big partner's Cherry Creek mansion to fly to San Diego to attend her boyfriend's firm's end of Summer party instead.  Huh?  Another Summer Associate feigned illness because his memo was due and he attended the Joe Jackson concert at Red Rocks the night before instead of finishing the assignment. Doh!

That is why today I offer Summer Associates all over the world this bit of advice:

1.  First and foremost, you must do great work.  This cannot be emphasized enough. Your offer for permanent employment starts and ends here.  No matter how charming you are or how many asses you kiss, I am sorry to tell you that you will never receive an offer of full-time employment if your work is sub-par.  The competition for these jobs is fierce, so you must fully understand the project, research the hell out of it (without spending too much of the client's money on Westlaw or Lexis), and present a beautifully written product.  If you do not do this, you will not receive an offer.

2.  Closely related to # 1 is the fact that, in order to do great work, you must understand the nature of the beast, and this is where most Summer associates fail.  You must understand exactly what the partner is asking you to do.  You have to ask questions, because most partners often assume that law students have much greater knowledge and experience than they actually have.  They forget that you have had a total of 4 semesters of law school and may never ever have had a class on Securities Regulation, the actual assignment you are being asked to give an opinion on.  It's up to you to figure it out.  

3.  Attend all Summer Associates social events that you are invited to.  Do not let work interfere with these social commitments even if there is a looming deadline.  Find a way to make it happen. Believe me, the partners are evaluating you as much on this level as they are on the work level.  They are asking themselves:  Is this a person who has the social skills to attract business and who can entertain clients?  This is a skill that is so important because there are a lot of legal minds who can do the work.  The greatest skill set is doing great work but also having a great personality so that clients will want you to do their work, and that is what partners are evaluating during these social outings.

4.  You must get to know at least one influential partner, closely.  When decision time comes in the board room, you will need  someone to go to bat for you.

5.  Don''t be a whiner.  This is a job.  If you haven't figured it out yet, the practice of law is difficult, let's face it.   Part of the rigor of law school, the Summer Associate program, and the bar exam is to weed out those who do not handle stress well.  Those who can manage stress well will reap great rewards.

These five tips will help all Summer Associates who follow them.  But if you think you need someone to personally guide you through your Summer program — if you think you need more focused, customized, personalized help and feedback to get where you need to be to get the offer from the law firm you're visiting this Summer — well, luckily, that is what I do during my Summer.  I love to help students during this transition period because my experience uniquely positions me to help you start doing many of the things you probably don't even know you should be doing.

If this is you, I invite you to have a look though all the experience I believe has uniquely prepared me in my role this Summer as your guide.  If you're ready to make sure you're doing everything you can to get the offer you want, e-mail me or call me at (312) 321-6477.  I only take a limited number of Summer Associates I think that I might be able to help, so let's see if we can partner to get you the offer.

Has your legal budget gone untamed and crept up year after year into an unmanageable and unpredictable mess?  Did it start out as one small vine and grow to look like the outfield walls of a certain beloved Chicago landmark?

Many corporations and law firms are using Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) to transfer services typically handled internally to outside contractors where the costs are lower.  Specialists can always do tasks more efficiently because streamlined systems are in place and repetition of tasks leads to expertise.  In the past, law firms had all of the bargaining power and clients were faced with a take it or leave it situation.  However, due to the current economic climate and extreme competition, clients now can dictate how their legal services are delivered.  

So how exactly does your corporation or law firm unbundle its legal services?  You start by breaking down the legal services your corporation or law firm requires into separate identifiable tasks such as overall strategy, document review, contract drafting, research, brief writing, etc.  Tasks such as designing legal strategy, legal research, and document review are all separate undertakings that should be unbundled for maximum cost effectiveness while still maintaining quality results.

Under the unbundling method, the big law partner serves as the director or coach, setting strategy and giving direction.  Then, the position players, such as the document review team and the legal research and writing team, perform their individual and discrete tasks under the direction and guidance of the strategy lawyer and corporate client.  Using this team approach results in the greatest level of expertise and the greatest cost savings to the client.

Once the discrete legal tasks are identified, there are three ways to unbundle these legal services:

1.  If your corporation is doing all of the discrete legal tasks in-house, break down the tasks into separate assignments and outsource them to specialists.  This can result in great savings by eliminating unnecessary in-house legal staff; 

2.  If your corporation is using big law firms, you can outsource by using the "Mexican Wave" approach.  Under this method, the corporation chooses the law firm and service providers to partner together to create the best quality product for the lowest price to the corporation.  There is a certain synergy between the participating organizations and all must have a cultural fit with the corporation; 

3.  If you are a law firm, you can also outsource some of the discrete legal tasks, such as document review and legal research, to outsourcing specialists.  Not only will this result in maximum savings to your clients and win you their undying devotion, you can also make a profit on the work of the specialists per ABA formal Op. 08-451.

Unbundling is easy once the discrete legal tasks are identified and the high-quality legal service providers are selected.  This will put you on the path to eliminating toxic Legal Waste at your corporation or law firm in no time.  

Next up:  Outsourcing legal services to U.S. based providers is the new wave. 

Unbundling legal services is necessary because legal fees have hit the summit at a time when companies are being forced to take a closer look at the bottom line.  Traditional law firms are guilty of gluttony because their legal rates have gone up 75% during a “great” recession when most companies are cutting operating costs and employees. These law firms compete with each other for high hourly rates, skyscraper office space, and revenue expectations that have become more a function of firms comparing themselves to each other for bragging rights rather than reflective of value of work done for their clients. This unjustified boasting swirls into a tornado of big law firm revenue expectations that must be fed by every client, whether or not the work truly justifies it.

Because of this Legal Waste, a shift is occurring in the way companies think about legal service.  Several commentators have referred to legal services as a "bundle of twigs" that can be separated and broken down or decomposed into individualized tasks. 

The                                                                              doesn't read the             

The                                                                              doesn't play the

The                                                                              doesn't throw the

and the                                                                        doesn't design the

So why are corporations paying big firms to do it all at exorbitant prices?  Specialists can always do the job more efficiently and better than generalists trying to cover all bases.

Companies are now in the driver's seat and can dictate how their legal services are delivered.  Companies want legal costs to be predictable, and they want such costs to be decreased while at the same time maintaining quality or even increasing the quality of the legal work because the various tasks are now being performed by specialists at each step of the way.  The time to unbundle legal services is now in order to remain competitive for the future.

Next up:  How to unbundle.

I received an email today from Apple letting me know that the iPhone4 is now available in white.  What geniuses they are.  They are the masters at creating new demand for existing products.  When the iPhone4 first came out, they could have easily made it available in both black and white.  A similar move was holding back on putting a camera in the iPad, so they could release an iPad2 less than a year later and thus generating new demand.  Brilliant.  I actually know some people (and I'm sure you do too) who bought the iPad when it first came out, only to shuck it when the iPad2 became available.  Apple knows  there are people like this out there and market their products accordingly.  A whole college marketing course could be designed studying Apple in depth.  Now that is a course I would love to take.

It caused me to wonder if lawyers can apply the Apple marketing strategy to market legal services.  How can we create new demand for our existing products?  We can’t change the color but maybe we can add a new value onto our existing services to make clients want us all over again in order to be loved like this: 

 It’s food for thought.

"I am profoundly sorry."  

How many times as litigators, do we wish our clients were free to utter those words.  Last week, The University of Notre Dame did just that.  It took courage and, perhaps, the disregard of lawyerly advice.  Father John Jenkins, the President of the University, issued a statement to students, employees, and alumni of the University accepting full responsibility for the tragic death of student videotographer, Declan Sullivan.  Here are the words of Father Jenkins:

"Declan died in a tragic accident while in our care.  For that, I am profoundly sorry.  We are conducting an investigation and we must be careful not to pre-judge its results, but I will say this:  Declan Sullivan was entrusted to our care, and we failed to keep him safe.  We at Notre Dame–and ultimately I, as President–are responsible.  Words cannot express our sorrow to the Sullivan family and to all involved."

Wow.  Good for you Notre Dame. You got it right after weeks of nonsensical statements like "[w]e have systems in place."  You have finally accepted the responsibility that was obvious to all and have appointed a qualified independent investigator.  Short of preventing the tragedy in the first place, it's the best you can do.

Father Jenkins's statement illustrates the profound power of an apology.  I will never forget my first day on the job as a federal district court law clerk.  The Judge that I worked for was holding a settlement conference involving a case where a young man was fatally injured in a horrific construction accident.  The mother and father sat across the long conference table from the imposing big law lawyers representing the construction company, developer, and landowner.  They had poured a million dollars into defending the claim at that point.  When the Judge separated the parties, and we were left with just the sad mother and father looking weary and small in the corner office at the imposing conference table, the Judge asked them what they wanted.  Want to know what their answer was?  An apology.  That was it.  They wanted the decision makers on the job to say "I'm sorry, we failed to keep your son safe.  We are so sorry for your loss."  Of course, their lawyer jumped right in and said they wanted an apology plus millions in damages, but the point is that the apology was the starting point.  Without that, negotiations led to the road to nowhere. The case ended up settling that day in the Judge's chambers after five years of litigation.

Talk about an eye opening experience for a young lawyer.  An "I'm sorry" in that case could have saved years of litigation and millions of dollars in legal expenses.  Now, I know that many lawyers will never counsel their clients to admit "guilt" or liability in the form of an apology, but what I am suggesting is that perhaps society should issue some sort of legislative fiat where

Sorry Doesn't = Guilty

Why should it?  Can't a person express remorse for an injury and yet not be admitting legal liability?

Last week, Notre Dame got it right under the leadership of Father John Jenkins:  "Declan died in a tragic accident while in our care.  For that, I am profoundly sorry . . . We at Notre Dame . . . are responsible."  Yes, they will pay dearly for their actions and for their statements, but the apology was the right thing to do.

This post examines the law schools that really need a lot of help in implementing their Twitter campaign.  Notice I didn't call it "Twitter strategy" because "strategy", according to Webster's Dictionary, implies a "plan of action designed to achieve a major or overall aim."  That these schools lack a plan is evident.  These schools think that because they have signed up for Twitter, their job is done.  Their comprehensive social media strategy consists of signing up and sending out a few tweets every now and then.   

Instead, a comprehensive social media strategy should be a well-thought out plan orchestrated to fire on all cylinders.  The plan must take into account who the target audience is, different ways to reach that target audience, strategies to attract new audiences, and the accounts should be updated almost daily.  To see the difference between the Good,  and the Bad and the Ugly, compare the Twitter accounts of the schools listed on my previous post at http://blog.lawwriter.com/2010/06/ with the schools listed below.  It's a no brainer.

 The following schools, while valiant for trying,  have failed to make the grade and should devote the necessary resources toward developing a social media strategy: 

No News is Good News

drakelaw                        0 Tweets

BoydSchoolofLaw        0 Tweets

First Impressions are the Most Lasting

Can't you tell from their Twitter handles what law schools these are?  Of course interested people will be able to find these schools on Twitter:

875Summit                    William Mitchell College of Law

LawandHistory              Massachusetts School of Law

FaulknerLaw                  Jones School of Law

dpulaw                            DePaul Law School.  Why not choose DePaulLaw?

A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing

St.ThomasLawMiam      They tweet once every 6 months or so.

FaulknerLaw                   Tweets are protected because they don't want anyone to see that which should be made public.

Alphabet Soup

auwcl                                American University College of Law

CUALaw                          Catholic University Columbus School of Law

CWRU_Law                   Case Western

So, that's the end of the series, Twitter Law U Gameday:  Where's the Band?  The great news is that more law schools than ever have joined Twitter and other forms of social media.  A few schools have really have figured out a great strategy.  UChicagoLaw's "Tweet Chicago", the Snapshot of the Law School, has left an indelible impression on me.  These schools will be the ones that benefit by having a better pool of admissions candidates and more alumni gift-giving because they are getting their message out.  Hopefully, the schools that aren't on social media, as well as the ones that are on it in name only, will wise up lest they miss the social media stream (which is now a tidal wave) and fall even further behind. 

Today, we give credit to those schools who really get it.  A lot of schools think it's enough just to have a Twitter and Facebook account–that's their comprehensive social media strategy. Then they can go back to their constituents and report that they are on social media, and their job is done.  They are sorely mistaken.    

A comprehensive social media strategy is a well-thought out plan orchestrated to fire on all cylinders.  The plan must take into account who the target audience is, different ways to reach that target audience, strategies to attract new audiences, and the accounts should be updated almost daily.

The following schools have made the grade and deserve their just recognition:

All Roads Lead to Rome Award

These schools really get social media.  They have several different social media accounts designed to reach their target audiences in many different forms:

UVALaw is on Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, and has its own YouTube channel

Harvard_Law is on Facebook, Linkedin, YouTube, and has the following Twitter accounts:  the law school, class of 2010, registrar, international legal studies, housing and the library.  Yes, 6 Twitter accounts in all for the law school.

MULaw is on all the usual suspects, Twitter, Facebook and Linkedin, and it also has a faculty blog. More law schools definitely need to get their faculty involved with blogging.

Pied Piper Award

If you tweet it, they will come:

Harvard_Law  7,078 followers

UChicagoLaw  2,871 followers

UVALaw  1,698 followers

UMichLaw  1,465 followers

Go the Extra Mile Award

These schools are constantly bombarding their followers with the school news:

WidenerLaw   3588 tweets

UChicagoLaw  2297 tweets

Harvard_Law  1989 tweets

First Impressions are the Most Lasting Award

These schools have great descriptive Twitter handles, not to be confused with any other school:

UTexasLaw

IUMauerLaw

IowaLawSchool

StanfordLaw

UChicagoLaw

Don't Judge a Book by its Cover Award

These schools don't quite understand branding, but they are doing a decent job tweeting:

sjquinney   Huh? University of Utah's law school, of course.

MULaw     Montana University Law?  Nope.  Maryland, perhaps?  Nope, it's Marquette.

dpulaw     Of course, DePaul Law School

Master of the Retweet Award

These schools have mastered the art of retweeting, something so many schools seem afraid of:

AlbanyLaw

ChicagoKentLaw

So, that's The Good.  Our next and final post will reveal The Bad and The Ugly.

This is the second post in a four-part series: Twitter Law U Gameday: Where's the Band? This post highlights why law schools need to have a Twitter presence.

When I talk to law schools about jumping into the Twitter stream, the most common protest I get is “but we have a website, isn’t that enough?”  The answer is NO, and here is why: 

“A website, while a valuable informational tool, is viewed in today’s world as static, in contrast to the “real-time” communication stream of Twitter.  Twitter doesn’t replace your existing information resources, such as newsletters and websites—it is used in conjunction with them.  Twitter gets your information out to the public in a direct and immediate manner.  A law school’s website is often updated without anyone even knowing about it.  With Twitter, the school can Tweet about the content as soon as it’s updated on the website, thus reaching a vast audience and immediately letting them know about the new content.” Jump Into The Stream, www.Techcrunch.com, May 17, 2009.

So, the greatest value of Twitter is the immediacy of the message delivery—it streams live in real time. The immediacy of the message is so great that Harvard Law School even used it on February 10 of this year to update snow predictions for its students and faculty! RT: Boston Tweet: Boston has downgraded the snowstorm to an advisory with less than 6" of accumulation – the snow emergency ends at 6pm.  

Law schools should use Twitter daily to promote their brand name, expertise and knowledge. Law schools can use Twitter to do everything from announcing press releases and awards, to messaging existing students, to recruiting new students and promoting alumni relations.  For example, the University of Chicago Law School had this recent tweet: Alumni News: Alan Meese '89 Receives William & Mary's Plumeri Award for Faculty Excellence 

The value of Twitter is keeping the school’s brand name in front of students, potential students and alumni every day.  For a law school, keeping the name of the school in front of a student who has applied to law schools and consistently bombarding him or her with news of great happenings on campus is invaluable in influencing that student to attend that school.  Nobody is perhaps doing a better job of this than Widener Law School with 3588 tweets,  or University of Chicago Law School with 2,297 tweets, It is also a useful tool to persuade alumni to make donations for the same reason. 

Yet another advantage of Twitter is so schools can control their own content and message.  The school is the author of the Tweets and can control the message about the school that it wants delivered. Moreover, if a negative message about the school is distributed by a disgruntled student, for example, the school will have a direct and immediate method to counter-attack the student’s negative message on Twitter.

Finally, the competition is already using Twitter effectively to target new law students and to service their existing students and alumni.  The University of Virgina Law School, for example, demonstrates its social media prowess by not only having a Twitter account, but also a Facebook page, a YouTube channel, and a Linkedin account. For many Generation Y students and alums who are on-line constantly and don’t respond to traditional methods of communication, that will be an important consideration in deciding which law school to attend and which donations to make.

So, kudos to the law schools who have joined Twitter and, in the process, created their own personalized news magazine.  To the rest of you, what in the world are you waiting for?