E-Discovery Takeaways from the Socha-Gelbmann 2009 Report
The full version of the 2009 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Report was finally published in December 2009 after exhaustive work by George Socha and Tom Gelbmann. It is the largest ever Socha-Gelbmann report; a compendium of trends, charts, and results spanning over 600 pages. The findings are fascinating and worth discussing, but so far surprisingly few in the industry have really given it much comment.
Once again George and Tom provide the 35,000 foot view of the industry and a detailed market analysis. The hotly contested vendor rankings have now been replaced by 250 pages of additional content.
2008-2009 Market – In-source / Out-source / Right-source
Overall, the e-discovery market, like everything else in 2008, shrunk quickly and significantly.
This is not surprising given that many law firms and corporations did cut back on their spending levels due to the recession. However, Socha-Gelbmann survey respondents felt the industry may be starting its recovery.
“Despite the market slowdown in 2008, consumers and providers continue to tell us they expect this market to expand by … about 25% in 2010.”
While the market as a whole did shrink, the report shows that larger providers actually gained market share (Tier 1 up 16%) vs. the mid-size providers (Tier 2 down 14%) and smaller providers (no growth for Tier 3). There was also growth shown in the DIY segment, comprised of those corporations and law firms that like to manage their own internal efforts.
In-sourcing
The Survey reports that client control of the e-discovery process is finally reaching its long awaited tipping point:
“Who Buys; who should control – After years of disparity with law firms favoring law firms, companies favoring companies on this question, I am seeing agreement with the consensus showing 60/40 in favor of the client.”
“Moving Electronic Discovery In‐House – Companies, law firms, and providers all report new or expanded efforts to move electronic discovery activities in‐house, with a strong emphasis on legal hold, litigation preparedness and compliance.”
I am heartened by the survey’s positive outlook for the industry, but I am skeptical that corporations’ in-sourcing of ESI management will be the primary factor in dampening the impact of growing volumes of ESI. I believe that proactive creation of and adherence to document retention policies will have the most profound effect on the volume of ESI that makes it out of the email, file or document management system and into a collection.
I believe that the more expertise clients bring in house, by recruiting experts or through closer relationships with vendors, the more they will understand the rather arcane and mysterious process of processing and producing ESI. And the more they will see that the ultimate cost savings is in efficiently storing only what is necessary for business record keeping and compliance.
The combination of storing less unnecessary information and in-house ESI management should lower the cost of managing ESI from collection through review more significantly so than the mere reduction in processing unit costs, data culling, or lower rates for offshore attorney review.
We must remember, however, that there are significant risks for organizations who bring ESI management in-house (recall In re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, in which the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight hired 50 contract attorneys and spent $6 million, or 9 percent of its annual budget, only to be held by the court in contempt for failing to meet its e-discovery deadline). Many corporations and law firms prefer having an outside vender act as a buffer between them and potential concerns about production of data.
The report mentions that not everything can be moved in-house and that for those types of activities, “companies and law firms alike are expressing a growing desire to be able to work with a single provider.”
Out-sourcing
In the 2009 report, we see just as many clients are outsourcing ESI work. Hosted review is one of the solutions in highest demand of all services and software. Two other solutions cited as highest in demand are data analytics and early case assessment, which are important trends that I will cover in a later Integreon blog post.
Outsourced attorney review receives its first analysis in this year’s report. This probably reflects a growing acceptance and trust in legal process outsourcing (LPO) services, as well as demand for contract attorney and staffing services too.
Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) rounds out the new out-trends that are profiled in this year’s report. The cloud computing debate around SaaS is just getting started as it populates the blogosphere and Twitter-verse. It is still much too early to determine the ultimate ramifications to privacy and discovery due to porting applications and data to a third party.
SaaS, outsourced attorney review, and hosted review are all identified in the report as the three fastest growing services in e-discovery, which illustrates that many organizations do see outsourcing as a very compelling method for lowering discovery costs and risks.
Right-sourcing
Keeping ESI close-to-home by in-sourcing may offer tighter risk management and cost control, however the findings from Socha-Gelbmann suggest that in-house departments and applications may be strained by large or exotic data sets. The report made a point of warning readers about recent marketing of some applications as “silver bullet” solutions. It may be tempting to bring an application in house that processes, analyses, produces and even convection grills in order to eliminate the need for vendors. However, there will always come a time when the software or hardware platform cannot keep up with the data volume or unusual data types or even unique production requirements. Simply put, it is always risky to have only one tool in the tool box.
Relationships with vendors should be put in place, even if only as a fall-back position, so that the vendor is prepped with knowledge about the client’s information architecture, data types and litigation requirements. Pre-existing rate agreements and communication protocols can make the client’s life much easier when having to find a vendor to handle an avalanche of data or technical issues at the eleventh hour. Careful consideration must be made to right-source the best elements for a comprehensive and defensible discovery process that will include the most effective in-sourced and out-sourced components.
WilmerHale Reduces its Middle Office Costs
Large US law firm WilmerHale announced Monday that it is opening a new business services center in the Dayton area, which will employ “approximately 187 employees from existing WilmerHale offices and new employees from the Dayton area.” This may herald a new chapter in law firm middle office services, that is, how large firms go about providing the support lawyers need.
WilmerHale explains that this will achieve “improved efficiencies for administrative teams and the firm, and reduce significant operational expenses.” Only a few large law firms have so far opened support centers in low cost locations; these illustrate different operating and location options:
- Orrick has a large and established domestic low cost support center, its Global Operations Center in Wheeling, WV, which it owns and operates.
- White & Case and Baker McKenzie both have low cost offshore centers in Manila, which each firm owns and operates.
- Clifford Chance operates a center in Delhi, which Integreon advised and supported. The Integreon press release and a New York Times article, Law Firms Are Starting to Adopt Outsourcing (27 Oct 2006), tell the story.
- Osborne Clarke outsourced much of its middle office to Integreon, which built a low-cost, centralized, shared services center in Bristol (see Integreon press release). This innovation was recognized in 2009 by the Financial Times “Innovative Lawyers Award” and the Managing Partners’ Forum “Innovation in Practice” .
WilmerHale’s decision will likely cause many large firms to take notice and consider their strategies and costs for lawyer support. Given the increasing price pressure in the legal market, reducing support cost may become a competitive necessity. The list above could well grow significantly in a year or two.
From our provider perspective, we think WilmerHale’s announcement is good news for the legal outsourcing market. Law firms that consider how they provide lawyer support must first answer “what’s the best operational model to provide it?” We think – and the list above supports this – that centralizing support in a low cost location is a a key part of the answer.
Whether a firm should own and operate centralized services or outsource to Integreon or similar provider is a separate consideration. Much literature exists on on the pros and cons of a “captive” low cost service center versus working with a 3rd-party outsourcing provider; these studies largely come out in favor of third parties:
- Pros and cons of captive offshore operations (EquaTerra, 2007)
- Assessing the Role of Captive Operations in Global Services Delivery Models (EquaTerra, 2007)
- Comparison of Outsourced and Captive Solutions for Capturing Value from Offshoring (Everest Research, 2007)
- Shattering The Offshore Captive Center Myth (Forrester Research, April 2007)
- Captive 2.0: The Next Generation of Indian IT and BPO Captive Operations (TPI, 2008)
- Captives in India: Is the Honeymoon Over? (Evalueserve, 2009)
At minimum, the own and operate model requires a scale that only a couple dozen global law firms have. Beyond scale, outsourcing to a third party offers several advantages over a captive operation:
- Better capacity utilization – By aggregating demand across many law firms, a third party is better able to manage work load variability than any single firm. Providers also take steps to utilize staff more consistently and effectively; these include: cross-training staff to perform different types of work; scheduling shift start and end times based on rigorous analysis of actual demand patterns; and judicious use of overtime based on real, rather than anticipated demand.
- Improved efficiency with the right processes, tools, and training – with scale larger than a single firm can achieve, providers can more readily invest in analyzing and documenting processes, acquiring specialized software, and providing appropriate training.
- Managing financial risk by converting fixed to variable costs – Law firms face challenges investing capital; providers can tap the capital markets (for example, Integreon recently raised $50 million). Working with a third party, firms can convert fixed costs that require capital to variable ones.
- Delivering performance with service level agreements (SLAs) and metrics – Most law firms lack the metrics and formal programs to assess internal service delivery. Many even find it a challenge to administer rigorous performance reviews or take corrective HR actions. So internal service levels vary widely. Outsourcers, in contrast, live by metrics and SLAs.
- Assuring business continuity with multiple locations – While a central location for staff does minimize cost, it increases the consequences of a business disruption. Working with a provider that has a global delivery platform (as Integreon does) allows splitting production between two or more countries or arranging a ‘fail over’ from one location to another in the event of a disruption.
- Operational know-how and focus - Running a central services center is not as easy as it looks. Providers are in the business of doing just that and have learned how to optimize building and operating such centers. Experienced providers like Integreon operate multiple low-cost delivery centers. This means they can benefit from the “experience curve effect” in a way law firms cannot. Moreover, providers are in the business of support services; for law firms, building and operating a center can become a distraction.
Given the lead time to plan centralizing, we don’t expect to see immediate announcements triggered by the WilmerHale decision. We won’t know the impact on the market for at least a year or two.
ABA Reviewing Ethics Rules, Examining Legal Outsourcing
The American Bar Association (ABA) is reviewing its Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including the rules applicable to legal process outsourcing (LPO). Integreon recently submitted formal comments to the ABA and testified at an open hearing. This post provides background on the ABA process, reports on a recent open meeting, and reproduces Integreon’s formal statement at the open meeting.
Public Forum on Offshore Outsourcing of Legal Services (17 April 2010, NYC)
The ABA Section of International Law held its 2010 Spring Meeting last week. On Saturday, April 17th, there was an open meeting, Public Forum on Offshore Outsourcing of Legal Services. The purpose of this session was “to gather viewpoints for the Section’s Leadership Council ["Council"], which is considering the formulation of policy recommendations to the larger ABA. The forum will include brief presentations from a panel involved with outsourcing issues and will also encourage audience statements and participation regarding views on outsourcing as they relate to legal practice.” The Section also invited submission of written information using the same set of questions as the 20/20 Commission (see below).
Background on the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 and Its Information Gathering Process
A hand-out at the Public Forum summarizes the ABA goal nicely:
“The ABA has long provided national leadership and vision in developing and interpreting standards of legal ethics and professional regulation. The speed with which technological advances and globalization affect lawyers, law firms, and clients requires thoughtful action and leadership by the Association because they present challenges that our ethics and professional regulatory rules may not yet fully address. Accordingly, in August 2009, ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm created the Commission on Ethics 20/20 to perform a thorough review of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the U.S. system of lawyer regulation and propose policy recommendations that will allow lawyers and law firms to better serve their clients, the courts, and the public in this new practice paradigm. For additional information about the Commission and its work, please go to http://www.abanet.org/ethics2020/home.html“
The 20/20 Commission is seeking public comment. Its home page states “The Commission is also interested in gathering information about domestic and international legal process outsourcing from lawyers, law firms, clients and outsourcing providers, and developed the following questions to do so.”
In addition, the Commission is working with the ABA Section of International Law’s Outsourcing Task Force to gather information.
ABA Section of International Law’s Outsourcing Task Force
The hand-out also summarizes the Section’s goal nicely (see also Section web page):
“The purpose of the Section of International Law’s Outsourcing Task Force is to examine the international outsourcing of legal processes with the intention of proposing a Report with Recommendations to the House of Delegates on the subject. From solo practitioners to the largest law firms, the legal profession is increasingly embracing international legal process outsourcing to assist in providing legal services to clients. Outsourcing is the delegation of legal tasks, including but not limited to research, drafting, and document review to third-parties particularly to other countries. This practice raises professional questions for attorneys and others involved in the legal profession.”
Report on Public Forum and Integreon’s Response
My colleague Foster Gibbons (Integreon’s Director of Global Document Review) and I attended the Public Forum; I testified. We also submitted written responses to the Section’s questions.
Panel Presentation. The session opened with a brief presentation by a panel. Prof. Robert E. Lutz of Southwestern University School of Law explained the ABA process of examining LPO. The International Section focuses on the international perspective on outsourcing whereas the 20/20 Commission focuses on the domestic perspective. The Council will provide inputs to the Commission, which in turn will report its recommendations by November 2010 to the ABA House of Delegates (the ultimate governing board of the ABA) .
Prof. Lutz framed three questions the ABA is considering:
- Do the Model Rules as they exist adequately address both onshore and offshore legal outsourcing?
- Should the commentary to the Model Rules be amended?
- Does the ABA need to provide any additional guidance to lawyers who outsource, for example, how to chose an LPO or how to structure an LPO relationship?
He indicated a range of outcomes is possible, including changing nothing, changing the model rules, editing the commentary, issuing a report on LPO, offering guidance documents, or addressing specific types of outsourcing (for example, for IP work).
Audience Statements. Two people then spoke. James P. Duffy, III has served as Chair of the International Law and Practice Section of the New York State Bar Association (”NYSBA”) and is currently involved in a number of trans-border initiatives for the NYSBA. Mr. Duffy said that NYSBA has been studying LPO since 2007 and that it is a topic of great interest. He shared with the Council and general audience his personal experiences of working with LPOs “on the ground” in India. His report of the experience was favorable.
I then presented. I read a prepared 3-minute statement, which I reproduce below. (I improvised a bit so the official transcript will vary.) Since no one else wished to testify, the Task Force asked me to stay at the podium to answer questions, which I did. Questions concerned security, confidentiality, and the difference between law “practice” and “process”.
Integreon’s Formal Three-Minute Statement to the Public Forum
Here is the text of Integreon’s formal oral statement at the open forum:
“I want to thank the panel and Section for this opportunity to speak to these important issues. We have prepared and will be submitting to the Section a written statement. I wish to address a few points in brief this morning.
Integreon is a global Knowledge and Legal Process Outsourcing provider. We have been serving demanding professionals in large US and UK law firms and law departments, investment banks, and corporations since 1998. Our management team includes numerous executives with extensive law firm, law department and LPO experience.
We provide LPO services from the US, UK, India and the Philippines. We also operate in China, and South Africa. We employ about 2,200 people worldwide, 40% of whom provide legal support services. About 430 are attorneys who deliver LPO services. Another 150 provide e-discovery solutions.
We do not, in any jurisdiction, practice law. We provide only legal support services. Our teams work under strict instruction from client’s counsel.
We comply fully with the recommendations in ABA Formal Opinion 08-451, which states:
“At a minimum, a lawyer outsourcing services . . . should consider conducting reference checks and investigating the background of the lawyer or nonlawyer providing the services”
In support of this, we provide clients with CVs for key team members. Clients can also interview proposed team members.
We also teach, internally and externally, an accredited MCLE Ethics course called “Ethics of Legal Outsourcing”. Some of the issues it covers include Unauthorized Practice of Law, Supervisory Responsibilities, Conflict of Interest Implications and Risks, and Client Confidentiality.
We take quality and security seriously. Our lawyers work with our Quality and Continuous Improvement team of Six Sigma Blackbelts to set objective benchmarks. All of our offshore LPO work is conducted in separately demised rooms that are secured by state of the art physical and IT security measures. Our corporate and law firm clients regularly audit our facilities and procedures.
Integreon has a conflicts checking process similar to a law firm.
Though we are not directly regulated, many statutes, rules, and regulations apply to us. We are very conscious, both as a legal and business matter, of the unauthorized practice of law rules.
Law is not the only framework governing business practices. To achieve high quality, we have voluntarily sought and received certification for several standards, many of which require a 3rd-party audit. For example, our Information Security Management is certified to ISO 27001:2005 and our Quality Management Process is certified to the new QMS of ISO 9001:2008. Integreon also complies with all Safe Harbor policies.
In sum, we are conscious of the concerns lawyers have about outsourcing and have taken many measures to address them.”
Conclusion
There was a a cordial and productive dialogue at the Public Forum. We are pleased that the ABA is devoting significant time to assess LPO and look forward to future opportunities to assist the ABA in its inquiry.
Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO): Law Firm Friend or Foe?
We read with interest a recently published Hildebrandt interview of Georgetown Law Professor Milton C. Regan, Jr on Outsourcing and the Impact on Legal Work.
Professor Regan has thought long and hard about the future of law firms. He co-organized the recent Georgetown Law conference on the future of law firms, summarized in our recent post Law Firm Evolution or Revolution. At the conference, he presented ideas from a forthcoming journal article (details and link at end).
The interview, like his presentation and paper, is thought-provoking. We agree with much of it but take exception to a crucial point. We disagree with his view that legal process outsourcers (LPO) can substitute for law firms, especially his view that LPOs can advise clients. We start with this disputed point and then comment on several on which we do agree.
Advice. Regan observes that once clients break down work into components, they “can find lower cost providers, either domestically or abroad, lawyers or non-lawyers, [and this] could hollow out a good portion of a firm’s operations… Right now, the standard distinction is that LPOs do routine work and law firms provide strategic advice.” As LPOs understand their clients better, he suggests they will be “in a better position to provide advice.”
As an LPO, we neither can nor should provide advice. We cannot provide advice because we are not licensed to practice law; our providing advice would violate the unauthorized practice of law rules. Moreover, we should not provide advice as a strategic business imperative. Specifically, we work with law firms (and law departments). So it is not in our interest to compete with firms. Instead, we seek to free-up outside counsel to provide more and better advice.
Rather than represent a competitive threat, LPOs allow firms to offer clients better value by outsourcing repetitive and routine work. LPOs, with their expertise and investment in process engineering, quality control systems, and technology are well-positioned to perform these tasks. But we are limited to tasks that lawyers can, practically and ethically speaking, delegate and supervise.
Project Management. Relating to the topic of high-volume work, Hildebrandt asks Prof. Regan about project management. He suggests PM is increasingly important for law firms. We agree that firms need people “who can analyze the different steps involved in providing a service” and “to do cost accounting in a reasonably precise sort of way.” Hiring the right personnel to decompose work into steps and analyze profitability accurately will allow firms to identify routine, high volume tasks.
Once firms identify these tasks, they can apply technology and processes to improve efficiency or they can retain an LPO to help them do so. Smart firms thus choose LPO providers that offer more than just simple staffing. For example, Integreon’s Legal Operations Consulting practice collaborates with our LPO clients to assist them in this analytical process.
Lawyer Training. We also agree with Prof. Regan’s skepticism that outsourcing high-volume tasks adversely affects lawyer training. He questions whether repeated work on routine tasks is essential to training. We have never been persuaded that, for example, associates need to spend months or years on document reviews to be good lawyers. To be sure, training new lawyers is a key industry issue. The training challenge, however, does not turn on LPO. Rather it turns on failing to train new lawyers on many important skills such as project management, practical client interviews, networking and rainmaking, running a law firm, communication, or negotiation
“LPO Reputational Signal”. The interview also explores why firms might be reluctant to outsource. Prof. Regan says that, at one time, firms may have believed outsourcing would have “signaled” low quality. He questions this assumption now: “I think now there are law firms that are looking more closely to see if outsourcing some tasks sends a different sort of signal. It suggests the firm is willing to be flexible and innovative in trying to provide more efficient services.”
We agree. In our view, using LPO now signals transparency on quality, productivity, and cost. Leading LPOs use defined and documented processes, incorporate advanced technology to support these processes, and regularly measure and report on performance and cost. For example, Integreon has conducted a double-blind study to compare two approaches to document review. The repeatable, tested, and technology-driven processes of an LPO are more likely to deliver consistency and accuracy than one-off, artisan approaches.
Recent news supports that “the LPO signal” is positive. Many major law firms outsource to LPOs or work cooperatively with LPOs at the behest of their corporate clients. And several major corporations – Microsoft, BAT, and Rio Tinto – have recently publicly stated that they use LPOs. (See also the list at Prism Legal of companies that send legal work offshore or outsource it ).
Conclusion. In sum, we interpret Prof. Regan’s remarks as very supportive of legal process outsourcing but would not go as far as he does in suggesting that LPOs may compete with firms in offering advice.
[End Note: In connection with the Georgetown Law School conference, Law Firm Evolution: Brave New World or Business As Usual?, a pre-publication copy of Prof Regan's paper is available: Milton C. Regan, Jr., Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for the Study of the Legal Profession, Georgetown University Law Center & Palmer T. Heenan, Georgetown University Law Center, Class of 2011, Supply Chains and Porous Boundaries: The Disaggregation of Legal Services, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 101 (2010) (forthcoming) (MS Word doc).]
Law Firm Evolution or Revolution?
Two weeks ago the Georgetown Center for the Study of the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law School hosted a conference, Law Firm Evolution: Brave New World or Business As Usual? My colleagues Liam Brown (CEO) and Mark Ross (VP Legal Services), who also attended, agree that this rated as one of the best ever conferences about large law firms.
Rarely have I seen such a good selection of topics and mix of panelists, who included managing partners, consultants, academics, and vendors. Well-known presenters included Ralph Baxter (Orrick), Mark Chandler (Cisco GC), Jeff Carr (FMC GC), Richard Susskind (writer and leading legal “futurist”), Dan DiPietro (Citi private banking ), and Adam Smith, Esq. (writer / consultant aka Bruce MacEwen).
Summing up two days of presentations by deep thinkers is not easy. My one-sentence take: while some claim Big Law is dying if not dead if it relies on a return to the “old normal”, the more widely held view is that Big Law will not only survive, but prosper by listening to clients and adapting to the “new normal”.
Fortunately, however, I do not have to sum it up here because others have done so already. Prof. David Wilkins of Harvard Law School gave a short closing address that encapsulated the themes beautifully. I append here my personal blog post that captured his closing remarks; below that I list some other conference coverage.
CONFERENCE WRAP-UP and SUMMARY: David Wilkins on Mega Trends for Legal Profession
(Reproduced from my Strategic Legal Technology blog.)I am attending Law Firm Evolution: Brave New World or Business As Usual? at the Georgetown Center for the Study of the Legal Profession. Here is my session report on the concluding remarks by David B. Wilkins, Lester Kissel Professor of Law and Director, Program on the Legal Profession, Harvard Law School.
Big Structural Changes
- Globalization – lawyers should look for where money changes hands and that is increasingly moving east
- Rise of Information Technology – tech re-making every aspect of the world; the change is accelerating
- Disintegration of 19th Idea of Distinct Fields such as law, accounting, business – knowledge is multi- and inter-disciplinary
Impact of Structural Changes on Legal Profession
- Legal services are being disaggregated and unbundled and being re-packaged and re-located
- Basis of competition will shift from <reputation + credentials> to <results + value>. Clients want value defined on their terms, which will be data-driven
- Move from focus on firms to focus on networks – barriers between firms and clients going down, virtual teams, boundary-less work; clients will hire teams
The Challenges for Large Law Firms
- Firms will have to embrace rather than shun the commodification curve – even sophisticated know-how spreads and loses special know-how status); commodified work can be very profitable (e.g., Accenture)
- Creating a common culture in global and networked economy – people move to best opportunities; firms need to develop ‘open architecture’
- Manage “paradox of professional distinctiveness” – law firms face pressure to emulate practices of other successful global businesses but if they become too much like their clients, it will be hard to recruit and regulators will be less likely to give lawyers special rights (e.g., attorney-client privilege); need a new definition professionalism
OTHER CONFERENCE COVERAGE
- The most thorough and in-depth coverage comes from Greg Bufithis of The PosseList, a leading e-discovery and litigation website and blog. Greg not only reported on the conference in depth, he also video-interviewed many panelists and attendees. The PosseList has a complete list of conference coverage on a single page with links to each session’s coverage; all the video interviews (including one of me) are available at YouTube.
- Lance Godard, a former Big Law marketing director and now consultant, has compiled a list of conference resources and coverage (all media types) at his blog. He includes links to the academic papers presented, a list of real time blog posts, article and commentary, the complete Tweeter feed, and links to all of The PosseList videos.
- For those who prefer mainstream media sources, Aric Press, the editor-in-chief of the American Lawyer, attended and wrote two pieces: The Change Agenda: Are We There Yet and The Change Agenda: Is Mega Law a Dead Man Walking, both of which appeared in the AmLaw Daily blog during the conference. The Wall Street Journal blog also wrote about the conference in Is the Law-Firm Model Dying? Not Yet, But It Might Be On The Clock. Note that WSJ was not in attendance and relied on Aric’s reporting.
- For a view somewhat contrary to many panelists, see Robert Sawhney’s post, Law Firm Evolution Conference at Georgetown in the US: my take. He is a law firm consultant based in Asia. Given that much of the discussion was about globalization, Asia specifically, this is an interesting perspective. His post, along with the one by the WSJ, also illustrates how the web and social media make it possible to “virtually attend” a conference.
- Paul Lippe, CEO of Legal Onramp (where we sponsor “LPO Central”), wrote Welcome to the Future: The Intimacy Imperative at AmLaw Daily (31 Mar 2010). Paul was a panel moderator; in this piece, he shares conference highlights plus his views on how firms should cope with the changes discussed at the conference.
We would be grateful to hear from any readers who attended or who read the coverage. Please feel free to leave a comment.