Categories
TEMP TOWN
|
My Blog
August 2011
|
DIANE HILL VANN, ESQ.: Posted on Monday, August 29, 2011 3:31 PM
Hi, Guys, As I promised: Why The Cloud Is Not The Contract Attorneys' Friend. Cloud computing encompasses platforms, infrastructure and software delivered over the Internet, instead of residing on local computers. The legal profession lagged behind in adopting cloud computing technologies. It's has yet to be determined whether lawyers stayed out of the "clouds" due to ethical obligations to protect client confidentiality and safeguard their data or because of law firms' inherent tendency to adhere to precedent and do things, "the way it's always been done." Therefore, cloud computing made little headway within the legal industry -- until now. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE PROBABLE FUTURE OF DOCUMENT REVIEW PROJECTS, PLEASE WATCH THIS VISUAL OF THE EFFECTS OF CLOUD-BASED COMPUTING. MOREOVER, YOU MIGHT WANT TO READ ABOUT "TRANSFORMING DOCUMENT REVIEW." Cloud-based computing promises to eventually perfect cost-effect document review projects, requiring far fewer Contract Attorneys, if any, given the new responsibilities of law firm Associates. Best Regards, Diane ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEXT WEEK: CLOUD-BASED DOCUMENT REVIEW ERRORS LIE WITH THE FIRMS. SEPTEMBER 5, 2011. |
|
|
DIANE HILL VANN, ESQ.: Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2011 3:45 PM
Hi, Guys, This is one time that the Law Firm cannot blame the Contract Attorneys for privileged documents slipping through the cracks. Enjoy! Best regards, Diane ------------------------------------------------ Defendants’ “Completely Ineffective” Review Procedure and Failure to Rectify the Inadvertent Disclosure in a Timely Way Results in Finding of Waiver – http://tinyurl.com/44y8pk5. |
|
|
DIANE HILL VANN, ESQ.: Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2011 3:19 PM
Hi, Guys, Well, this is one time they cannot blame Contract Attorneys for turning over privileged documents. Enjoy! With warm regards, Diane ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants’ “Completely Ineffective” Review Procedure and Failure to Rectify the Inadvertent Disclosure in a Timely Way Results in Finding of Waiver – http://tinyurl.com/44y8pk5. |
|
|
DIANE HILL VANN, ESQ.: Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:07 AM
HI, GUYS, PLEASE, KEEP SAFE THIS WEEKEND AND KEEP YOUR PETS SAFE, AS WELL. REMEMBER, WATER, WATER IN THE TUB, FLASHLIGHTS, RADIO CONTACT, NON-PERISHABLE FOODS, SUCH AS DELICIOUS PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY SANDWICHES, TUNA, ETC. PLEASE, STAY IN CONTACT WITH YOUR LOVED ONES, VIA TEXT MESSAGING, VIA YOUR CELLULAR TELEPHONE, WHICH IS THE MOST RELIABLE, ETC.! ALSO, VIA ME, ON MY LOG AND MY PERSONAL E-MAIL. BEST REGARDS, DIANE |
|
|
ANONYMOUS : Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:23 PM
Hudson's Up To Its Old Tricks!
As I sit here coding documents on a Sunday afternoon earning my over time, I thought that I had heard it all. Apparently Hudson's client likes changing their mind every five minutes and no one should ever blame the bearer of bad news. In this instance, however, Hudson took the matter a little too far.
The firm changed the time to go home three times in 15 minutes. Immediately thereafter, Hudson's supervisor took all but 5 minutes to return to the room and threaten the contractors.
First, he proclaimed he was doing us a favor by convincing the law firm to allow us to stay and work over time into the afternoon and evening. Fair enough, especially in this line of business. Then again, they did have a production deadline to meet the next morning. While gallantry apparently isn't dead, he then chastised 30 contractors for the actions of the few.
It seemed "some" of us were "testing his patience," and if we didn't pick up the pace, then he would have them "escorted off the premises!"
Threatening the masses because of the actions of the "some," is taking matters a little too far. Agencies, please take your grievance directly up with the "some" and graciously allow the rest of "us" to continue to quietly earn over time on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
|
|
|
DIANE HILL VANN, ESQ.: Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2011 11:11 AM
Hi, Guys, Finally, the questions that I posed to the Panel of a large Law Firm Partner, two Temporary Agency Executives, and an E-Discovery Software Specialist at the New York Seminar on E-Discovery in the document review world. My Questions: 1. Are you aware of the McDermott Case, and if so, what do you believe was the cause? The law firm partner acknowledged the McDermott case. In his opinion, the cause of the matter was that Clients do not want to pay top dollar for document review work; that they want the projects finished as quickly as possible; and as a consequence of not wanting to pay high hourly rates for Associates to perform the document review, Contract Attorneys are hired. Both of the temporary agencies agreed with the Partner. However, they took it one step further and said that they had to hire those Contract Attorneys that would accept the lower rate of pay. They stated that even when they had to take cuts, themselves, just to make the rates, somewhat appealable to Contract Attorneys, the rate was not good enough to keep the more competent Contract Attorney. The law firm partner and the agencies representative acknowledge that they were not getting the most qualified and competent attorneys at those rates, that often they were not able to train the Contract Attorneys adequately, to the E-Discovery software being used. The agencies also stated that as a consequence of such low rates, they had a lot of attrition on projects--Contract Attorneys would leave for better paying projects. 2. What do you believe is the effect of the McDermott Case? (The Agencies used this time to vent about the lower rates Law Firms are offering.) (The Law Firm used this time to vent about Clients wanting rates cut.) The law firm Partner stated that as long as Clients are interested in cost savings, and are not willing to pay the Associate rate, things will not change. The temporary agencies representative, agreed. 3. Do you believe that the McDermott Case has negative effects on Contract Attorneys, and if so, in essence, who, how, what, when, where, and why? All of the panelist were of the same opinion--that they were more likely, now, to use the same Contract Attorneys, time and again--Contract Attorneys who were proven to be qualified and competent. Obviously, McDermott has a negative effect on temporary agencies, as well The true result of the McDermott case is seen in the latest project being staffed at McDermott: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ POSTED TODAY: SATURDAY, AUGUST 20, 2011 McDermott Will & Emery LLP is seeking temporary attorneys with one or more years of experience using electronic document review databases (i.e. Relativity, Concordance EED, Stratify, Attenex, and Introspect) in anticipation of future projects. DC bar admission is required. Please include a list of software programs you have worked with on your resume. All candidates must apply online and submit the following documents: * When applying online, please select "Discovery & Dispute" for the Department and "Project Attorney" for the position. * Attachment 1: Cover Letter & Resume (include software applications) * Attachment 2: Transcript We are not accepting applications submitted by search firms. Please apply via the McDermott Will and Emery web link (click here). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ With best regards, Diane NEXT WEEK: FINAL QUESTION,4. Are you familiar with CLOUD-based E-Discovery and its potential to revolutionize the document review industry for Law Firms and Contract Attorneys? |
|
|
DIANE HILL VANN, ESQ.: Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:36 AM
Hi, Guys, Since when is less better? Ever since, McDermott. Not only is the Washington Metropolitan Area seeing changes in the requirements for document review Contract Attorneys, so is other parts of the Country, such as Dallas, Texas. Notice the below ad for Document Review-Dallas/Admitted Attorneys. Upcoming review projects in the Dallas Metro Area requiring admitted attorneys (any state). Ideal candidate will have 1-2 years of review or large project... $26 - $28 an hour.
What???? "Ideal candidate will have 1 to 2 years of review or large project . . . ." Remember the July 31, 2011, Washington, D.C. posting: "We have an immediate need for a document review attorney for an antitrust project with a Washington, DC firm. Position will pay $30/hour. 40 hour work week with possible OT. It is expected to run 4-6 months. We are only looking for candidates with 1-3 years of document review experience. If you have more than 3 years document review experience please do not apply. The client is very specific they do not want more.
You must have graduated from a TOP tier law school. Some of the work can be done at home."
As I stated above, since when?? Ever since, McDermott. Some could argue that the one to two years of review is because the Temporary Agencies are willing to pay no more than $26.00 to $28.00 per hour and Attorneys with less experience are more likely to accept such low rates. Fine, however, what about the demand that no one need apply with more than three years of experience? No, I believe that the cause and effect is, McDermott. Why do I say, McDermott? I say McDermott because of my opinion that McDermott has led law firms to lose confidence in the ability of "seasoned" Contract Attorneys to perform effectively and efficiently in their role of document reviewers. Law firms are fearful of becoming McDermott. |
|
|
DIANE HILL VANN, ESQ.: Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2011 2:18 PM
Hi, Guys, Just to remind you of the McDermott saga, on August 3, 2011, I attended a panel discussion held at a law firm in New York. The discussion was entitled, "This FIRST-EVER NYC panel discussion focuses on career and professional development for legal, staffing and Electronic Discovery professionals in the industry." The panel included a law firm Partner, the CEO of Tower Legal Staffing, Inc., a Director of Peak Counsel, the CEO of Document Review Enterprise, Inc., and a Regional Sales Director of Catalyst. The moderator for the discussion was a writer with The Wall Street Journal that is assigned to cover matters like the McDermott Case and issues involving the E-Discovery industry. Upon completion of the panel discussion, the Questions and Answers ("Q and A") portion was opened to the audience. The Panel addressed my questions. All but one of my questions addressed the McDermott effects. My last question addressed the CLOUD, which I believe is going to be of major importance in the document review business--a negative effect for Contract Attorneys. I will discuss the CLOUD at a later time. My Questions: 1. Are you aware of the McDermott Case, and if so, what do you believe was the cause? 2. What do you believe is the effect of the McDermott Case? (The Agencies used this time to vent about the lower rates Law Firms are offering.) (The Law Firm used this time to vent about Clients wanting rates cut.) 3. Do you believe that the McDermott Case has negative effects on Contract Attorneys, and if so, in essence, who, how, what, when, where, and why? 4. Are you familiar with CLOUD-based E-Discovery and its potential to revolutionize the document review industry for Law Firms? END OF PART II. THE MCDERMOTT EFFECT. PART III. THE MCDERMOTT EFFECT, NEXT WEEK, MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2011. With best regards, Diane |
|
|
DIANE HILL VANN, ESQ.: Posted on Friday, August 12, 2011 9:51 PM
Hi. Guys, The McDermott Case Saga will be continued on Monday, August 15, 2011. I am sorry; I am far more busy than I anticipated. However, I do want to share with my great friends my New York experience, and I shall. With warm regards, Diane |
|
|
DIANE HILL VANN, ESQ.: Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:22 PM
Hi, Guys, I am sorry!! I have been running in and out of meetings all day today. I shall provide Part II of the McDermott saga, this weekend. With warm regards, Diane |
|
|
|
|
