Legal Outsourcing - Politically Correct? Or Politically Incorrect?

Several weeks ago I lectured at a continuing legalline. Do incoming revenues exceed expenses? If
education seminar on the opportunities, pitfalls,not, the remedy is fairly simple: either increase
advantages, disadvantages and benefits ofrevenues or decrease expenses (or both).
selective legal outsourcing. It wasn't a "hard sell"So what does this have to do with U.S. law firms
talk. Being a litigation attorney myself and havingand companies selectively sending some legal
attended scores of legal seminars, I am personallywork offshore to be produced at significantly
offended by blatant salesmanship offered bylower cost? Assuming that quality offshore legal
some CLE speakers, a practice encouraged by anwork can be reasonably obtained, isn't it crazy to
emerging trend to charge, rather than pay,even entertain the idea? Won't even more U.S.
supposedly qualified speakers to grace thejobs be lost?
podium. Nonetheless, during the question andOn November 11, 2008 The New York Times
answer session at the end of my talk, oneheadline declared: "Law Firms Feel Strain of
younger lawyer was clearly upset at the notion ofLayoffs and Cutbacks." The article noted that law
sending any U.S. jobs offshore. His questionsfirm personnel, including attorneys, were being laid
reflected anger, even outrage, at the prospect ofoff because the clients were no longer able to
any U.S. legal work being sent offshore.afford the legal fees charged. Indeed, the Financial
One question bubbles to the top: Is legalTimes reported a survey concluding that
outsourcing, or any type of outsourcing, politically"corporate legal bills soared nearly 20% (in 2006)
correct? A second question follows: What really isand could increase by a further 9% in 2007."
political correctness anyway, and why does itThe law firm of Heller Ehrman, founded in 1890,
matter?folded in September 2008. This was a firm
Wikipedia defines political correctness as "a termspecializing in big litigation cases, a supposedly
applied to language, ideas, policies, or behaviorrecession-proof legal arena. As recently as 2004
seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender,Heller ranked second on the American Lawyer's
race, cultural, disabled, aged, or other identityA-List. Nonetheless, financial challenges led to its
groups." Conversely, political incorrectness is "ademise. In December 2008 a similar fate befell
term used to refer to language or ideas that mayThelen LLP, an 84 year old law firm, which had
cause offense or are constrained in orthodoxy."600 lawyers in 2006. At the end of December
Political correctness has been traced back to2008 Thacher, Proffitt & Wood LLP, hired by
Mao's Little Red Book. The term was adopted inthe treasury department three weeks earlier to
the 1960's by the radical left as a self-criticism ofwork the the government's $700 billion bailout,
dogmatic attitudes. In the 1990's theannounced it would dissolve. These jobs at these
characterization was used by the political right inthree law firms were not lost because of legal
the U.S. to discredit the Old and New Left. Almostoutsourcing, which, at present accounts for but a
always used pejoratively, "political correctness" istiny fraction of U.S. legal service business. They
a label ascribed by one group to another with thewere lost because of financial realities: law firm
purpose of controlling or manipulating thought andexpenses (salaries being number one) exceeding
or behavior.revenues. Law firm clients are increasingly saying
One problem with political correctness is"we can't pay these ever increasing rates any
determining who, exactly, is "correct" in theirlonger." Clients question why they should be
thinking. Should Jesse Jackson or Rush Limbaughpaying U.S. associate attorneys, for example,
define political thought and social ideas in America?$200 or more hourly to perform large scale
Does it have to be one or the other? What aboutdocument review, when this task can be
the slogan "Buy America?" On its face, aundertaken competently by offshore lawyers at a
movement to buy American goods and productsfraction of the cost. Further, recent ethical
exclusively would seem to be so universallyopinions by U.S. bar associations (San Diego, New
politically correct that no reasonable person couldYork, and ABA) allow for a law firm sending work
take an alternative position. Wouldn't buyingoffshore to charge its clients a "reasonable
American-made cars ensure American jobs andsupervisory fee" to oversee outsourced legal
help the overall American economy? Well,work. Wouldn't Heller Ehrman, Thelen and Thacher
perhaps, but the Big Three U.S. Automakers arehave been wise to consider selective legal
apparently on their way out, while foreignoutsourcing as a means to survival, thereby
manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota arepreserving American jobs?
hanging tough. Why? The Big Three are saddledSo, is outsourcing some legal work offshore
with union contracts requiring high wages and"politically incorrect," un-American, and likely to lead
benefits, even for some retired or laid offto a drastic loss of U.S. jobs that would otherwise
"workers" who are not currently producing carsnot occur? Or, instead, is selective legal
or parts at any GM plant. GM had its best salesoutsourcing but another tool (like computers,
year ever in 2007. It sold over 9 million cars allword processing software, voice recognition
over the world---the same number as Toyota.technology, email) to enhance efficiencies and
But Toyota made $20 billion and GM lost $40improve the bottom line for law firms and their
billion. One year later, GM is on the rocks. Wouldclients alike? The decision is best made by you,
the picture have been different if free trade hadyourself ,and your firm or company rather than
been restricted and GM could not sell autos anychecking the wind and asking, "is it politically
place outside the U.S. and Toyota could not sell incorrect?
America? Not likely. Businesses run on the bottom