Welcome to tomorrow. Judge Peck of the the Southern District of New York court mandated robo-attorneys for document review--because it's cheaper. I have practiced in Federal Court and this type of "innovative" idea could catch like wildfire--and spread from one Judge's chambers to the other. Let's determine how many jobs this type of case would have created. Apparently, the issue in the case is as follows:
Whether Publicis Groupe compensated female employees less than similarly situated males via salary, bonuses, or perks; precluded or delayed the selection and promotion of females into higher level jobs held by male employees; and carried out terminations or reassignments when the company was reorganized in 2008 that disproportionately impacted female employees.I'm thinking this type of case would have provided work for 25 or so contract attorneys. So, thanks for putting 25 young, starving and possibly homeless contract attorneys out of work, Judge Peck. I know, it's not his responsibility to make sure that young attorneys are working. But it's also not his responsibility to make watch the litigants' pockets. Next he'll be looking at the attorney's bills and deciding whether the work is administrative or legal in nature before the check is cut. Unless, of course, the legal fees are awarded to the Plaintiff---which could actually be the case here. Then that does fall within his duties as a judge. Whatever. That's not the point.
Litigation is pricey and that is part of what makes the machinery of the legal system turn as it does. To usurp that premise by dictating methods of discovery is... should I say... reversible error?
Let's see what happens. Run, don't walk, away from contract work. It's no place to be when the ground splits open beneath your feet.
Moral of the Story: The government always finds a way to intervene, i.e. ruin, the free market.
Posts
For $ome rea$on, law schools will continue to increase tuition at alarming rates - and accept HUGE-ASS class sizes. The cockroaches, pigs, rats and rapists will also continue to claim that "a law degree is highly versatile."
ReplyDeleteLet's be honest, the contract attorney market has been dead for years anyway.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I heard about a company pitching to DC law firms years ago about this type of technology. These type of companies would basically be the permanant contract attorneys putting K attorneys out of work. Honestly, most of them are uncouthe, ill-behaved bottom of the barrel scavengers, until the market produced fewer law jobs, you saw an increase of "normal" attorneys..Caught in the crosshairs.
ReplyDeleteThere are parallels between what this post describes and other employment trends. Much of the low-level work once done by recent college graduates is disappearing; even some of the mid-level management jobs are being eliminated. While I can see the value of technology in the classroom (I use it.), almost anyone can see that the trend toward online education will eliminate many instructors' jobs. And lectures will be broadcast on Skype (or whatever more-evolved equivalent comes along in the next few years) from India or some other place.
ReplyDeleteNo one is being forced to attend law school.
ReplyDeleteNo one is being forced to borrow money.
Those who do have only themselves to blame for any resulting dissatisfaction.
Here it appears the government is embracing the free market for once with such decision. Perhaps the next steps for those not liking such actions is to put resources and efforts behind slowing down or eliminating similar court mandated e-discovery methods (aka lobby, approaching the ABA, etc.).
ReplyDelete"Moral of the Story: The government always finds a way to intervene, i.e. ruin, the free market."
ReplyDeleteOr, this is an example of the government belatedly ending an intervention in the operation of the free market. If you believe in the free market and want to see government interventions minimized, then you should be happy to see the system unburdened by inefficiencies like unneccessary labor costs, and feel confident that this will ultimately maximize economic benefits to society as a whole, even if it leaves you unemployed.
"No one is being forced to attend law school.
ReplyDeleteNo one is being forced to borrow money.
Those who do have only themselves to blame for any resulting dissatisfaction."
Would you say the same applies to someone who invests in the stock market but is misled by false information? I bet nnot. I am not one to have put much stock in law school postgrad employment rates, but plenty of people do/did and the numbers are patently erroneous leading to some admittedly poor decisions by some
It's a shame that the Honorable Judge Peck can't just mandate the closure of excess law schools while he's mandating the closure of subsistence jobs for many attorneys.
ReplyDeleteThis is really going to double screw a lot of law school grads. I have a couple of friends from school who do doc review. They both are earning around 10 to 20 dollars an hour and are absolutely miserable, not really because of the compensation but because of the conditions. In some ways I wonder whether it just shows how bad everything has gotten when people are fighting for positions that border on torture.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, in a truly ironic twist, the job market in America is so bad, that we can now compete with the wages LPOs in India pay, thus paving the way for doc review jobs to come BACK to the U.S.! It'll be at minimum wage, but hey, your deans will be able to say their grads are employed!
ReplyDeleteMy father was a CPA and had a CPA/JD for a partner. The guy rocked and made bank. Of course that was years ago, before the debt burden became such a huge issue for JDs. You folks gotta remember that now LegalZoom is doing wills for people for 10% of what a JD trying to pay off their loans would charge you are at risk. The free market cuts both ways. People aren't willing to pay $3K for a basic Will like they would back in the day. If I was going to borrow six figures for a law degree I'd do some due diligence. Absent that you're done and you deserve to be exactly where you are.
ReplyDeleteProbably another thing to remember is that most regular folks aren't anywhere near as impressed with Esquires as you are. In fact they are pretty well aware that there are legions of attorneys in business, law and politics that have done nothing other than to make our world more aggressive, manipulative and cynical. You deserve exactly what you get.
"But it's also not his responsibility to make watch the litigants' pockets."
ReplyDeleteActually you are wrong. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ("These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.").
It was an excellent effort made by you through your nice piece of writing, holding the quality and knowledge together for the readers.
ReplyDelete