Swine flu in the LPO

Greetings!

In India, the H1N1 epidemic continues with it being twice as bad here as in the rest of the world with the infection being viciously rampant in my city-Pune . Almost all the deaths due to the flu occurred in Pune. To date we have a death a day, total toll from August 2009, when the first death occurred, being 82.Considering that Pune has a population of approximately 50 lacs which is spread over an area of 450 sq.kms, it was a difficult task to control the flu; and while city schools and colleges were shut down, commercial establishments and offices continued to function and deal with the epidemic any which way they could.

This post is inspired by an interesting post on the legal and workplace implications of H1N1 which went on to speak of the challenges faced by employers in dealing with swine flu and how to deal with them.


The article referred above spoke of the legal affects of swine flu and how to deal with it in the workplace. Here's a tongue-in-cheek, albeit very truthful look at what we did in office to combat the infection:



1. For a week or so everyone came in with masks. A few wrapped their faces in scarves. This however, made communication impossible and so the masks and scarves came to be gradually discarded during the course of the day.(Pic courtesy @devakishor on Twitter)

2. Anyone with a cold refused to attend work. Sometimes even someone who sneezed more than thrice pleaded social responsibility and went home.

3. At regular intervals the air conditioning was turned off and windows and doors opened to let in sunlight and fresh air which hopefully would destroy any lurking germs.

4. Someone heard that eucalyptus oil helped prevent H1N1 and one 50 ml bottle of oil was brought in by the office, which was rapidly emptied by the end of the same day and never replaced.

5. The drug store opposite made a few thousands selling eucalyptus oil tablets, to which I, who anyway had a predilection for the oil, have now got addicted to.

6. The only pregnant staffer was segregated but whether it was as a precaution against swine flu or because she no longer fit into the cubicle, I am not very sure.

7. After a while everyone decided what the hell, if it was going to happen it would happen and stopped all pretense at precautions.

TO BE NOTED is that almost everyone in the office at some point suffered from sore throats, cold sand cough during this period. This includes me who never gets a cold. This is in itself unusual. My theory is that everyone must have suffered a mild form of swine flu and recovered which means we all are now immune.

Hurrah.

Pins in Underwear & Quality Set-Ups Part II

To continue with the previous post.

One way a small firm can save on costs is to hire cheap at production level. and splurge at the higher level, praying that good management will control quality. But this does not work. At least not for long. Good project managers are not necessarily good at providing quality work. Nor should project management be expected to deal with quality assurance.

To ensure quality deliverables the firm must have a good quality set- up in place. Introducing quality set- ups in small firms which have never heard of them before is like taking a toddler to the dentist for the first time. She doesn't know what she's in for and eagerly toddles along, so the introduction is not too bad. But the next time you want to her to toddle, she tears your hair out.

The first step in introducing quality procedures is to introduce the team to the concept of "errors".

The reason errors occur is that at production level, the team is often not aware what exactly is the error they are alleged to be making. The client's mails listing mistakes, are sheer babble. (What is she talking about? What error? Isn't that just what we did?)

Asking a direct question therefore: What is an error- draws a blank. Yet in order for the quality procedures to be put in place, this first step of getting the team to recognize what is an error for that particular process, is vital.

This can be solved by getting the team to relate what part of the process seems to them to be the trickiest. Remember, it is always at that part of the task that one finds the most difficult that one is likely to make the most mistakes.

In one instance while applying this strategy, I realized that the team was not really aware of what the process was all about. They were merely performing the tasks told like automatons without the faintest idea of why they were doing it.

An explanation of the whys and wherefores of client requirements serves to bring the team to an understanding of why a particular document needs to be done in a particular manner.

Once the team sees the reason and logic in the work they are engaged in, they can then see for themselves what the client means when she cries "error".

And so thus, the first step in introducing a quality set up- defining an error is taken. For the rest, wait for my next post.

In parting. As I always say a knowledge of the English language is essential if you are going to work on US or UK legal documents. Recently an EBT submitted (deposition) in a personal injury case, read: She cannot put pins in her underwear.

Pins in underwear. Why would anyone put pins in underwear? Do American women now put pins in underwear the way Indians used to pin purses into their underwear to deter thieves?

A little investigation revealed all.
The EBT should have read: She cannot put pants on, her underwear.

Yeah, even legal outsourcing has its lighter moments.

Startups and Quality Set-Ups. Part I

Despite recession swamping the globe the legal process outsourcing industry exulted. LPO gurus both sides of the pond confidently predicted that the industry would flourish.

With several LPOs in the city which had apparently been doing well downing shutters precipitately within six months of that prediction, and even the larger companies- the multi-storeyed, shiny KPOs and BPOs which had wasted no time joining the mad LPO boom, still struggling to establish their legal outsourcing units, one is left looking for the reason why.

The main reason seems to be that our once- magnanimous American attorney, now in the unfamiliar position of having to economize like any rural Indian housewife, when he seeks to outsource, is looking for two things and two things only -cost savings and quality.

Time was when confidentiality was a major issue and the subject of much discussion in the US legal fraternity but in India at least, this is no longer a concern.

So we have here the client who wants to pay the least but expects the best. Unfair? No.

The Indian market is seething with LPOs, and who can blame Big Daddy for wanting to shop for bargains? Here is where the smaller LPOs have a distinct advantage over their richer cousins-the larger companies. Small firms spend far less on infrastructure and facilities . They operate on bare bones infrastructure and hire freshers who work for a pittance. They can afford to quote ridiculously low prices .

But this has its flip side too. Consistently hiring cheap labor results in deliverables that are of poor quality and ultimately the client goes elsewhere.

How to save on costs and yet deliver work of the highest quality is a dilemma all firms-big and small- face. How to deal with I shall leave for my next post.

For now, suffice it to say that the LPOs that will flourish will be the ones that can deliver real value. And real value in every case would be work of the highest quality, within the given time and cost parameters, and with confidentiality as a bonus.

See you soon.

Rosemary

Sala Main To Sahab Ban Gayaa.

If this side of the pond ponders Indian lawyers in danger of turning into clerks, the other side sees US and UK attorneys metamorphosing into top management honchos overnight.

The fear of recession even before the bogey actually arrived, led to large scale layoffs and downsizing of law firms particularly in the US. As predicted, legal process outsourcing itself apart from a slight hiccup in the early part of 2009 saw a smart pickup in the second half of the year.

With the ABA mandating strict legal supervision on all legal work that is outsourced, many LPOs set up in India have begun hiring US attorneys not only to satisfy compliance with due diligence procedures but also to increase the comfort levels of their clients. The salaries paid to these attorneys are invariably twice and thrice what an Indian lawyer is paid for the same job.

The result is that US and UK attorneys who would never otherwise have dreamed of visiting the Orient are making a beeline for India and China and happily playing leading roles in LPOs. At home, they would probably still be struggling juniors, serving summonses and recording EBTs. Here, they manage large teams of Indian lawyers and head ambitious projects. Their salaries may not be as high as what they might have earned in the US even at the lowest rung of their careers, but the lower cost of living both in India and China more than makes up for that. Furthermore, LPOs in India are based in metros where the standard of living can be even more lavish than abroad, what with malls, multiplexes, and in-house help for every chore.

LPOS here may not really need foreign attorneys, particularly those with experienced legal professionals on board. While a JD brings to the firm a deep and close knowledge of the law of his/her land; the basic concepts of law are the same in every corner of the civilized world and US and UK legal provisions and procedural laws, or at least as much of those that are needed to work on legal projects, can be easily imbibed by some focused study on the net. FindLaw.com. and other law sites on every aspect of the law, in every state, are easily available online. Bluebooking skills are not difficult for an intelligent, skilled professional.

Many Indian lawyers fear that having foreign attorneys working here is going to affect their own chances. If so, so be it. In a global setup there is no room for protectionism. The competition is open and it is fierce. And if you are really good you need not fear it. Of course there are others who believe they are as good as their US and UK counterparts and so they are; but they will just have to wade in there and prove it.

In any case, LPOs themselves are totally unconcerned about any real or imagined insecurities that Indian lawyers might be experiencing. And rightly so. Outsourcing firms are sprouting as wildly and enthusiastically here as weeds in the Indian monsoons. Survival may not be an issue to most, but growing into an entity to contend with, certainly is. And for that, every weapon available must be used. If that includes employing foreign attorneys at twice the cost of what they would pay for their highest paid Indian legal employee, well, no one is thinking twice.

Incidentally the title of this post is a popular Hindi song which loosely translated means, "Hell, I just turned into the Boss."

Are Indian Lawyers Turning into Clerks?

A lot of law firms in the US have back offices in India and several insist that the work be done by Indian attorneys rather than paralegals. Most of the work is low end work. The sort of work that in India is done by clerks with a 10+2 higher secondary school certificate.

For starry eyed young lawyers fresh out of law colleges faced with the reality that court practice in India is not for them, LPOs are an attractive option. But rare is the fresher who can work on a legal research project or engage in a really complex e-discovery project. The work they are set to do is prepare case files and upload data. Their concern is therefore, "are we turning into clerks?"

In an earlier post, I had written that a degree in law is sufficient for back office work. I eat my words. While the work is often mindless no-brain work, nevertheless the product delivered by Indian attorneys is often subpar. The reason is not that they are below the average in intelligence as compared with their US or UK counterparts, but rather that the intricacies of the English language often cripple them.

Even for low end, back office work, one needs to understand the queries raised. Legal writing is archaic and very technical. Because a lawyer has to cover all aspects of a situation in order to make a document airtight, the language is also invariably very convoluted and complex. Merely having studied and answered law exams in English does not suffice.

Law in many of our local colleges, is very often taught by professors who, while they are excellent with the subject itself, are from a vernacular background, with the result that their hold on the English language, is tenuous at best. An LL.B. degree merely introduces its holder to legal vocabulary; to breed familiarity, one needs to be constantly reading and handling legal documents.

Not understanding the difference between "referring" and "referral", "consistent" and "consisting", "verily" and "verify", "at " and "on", can indeed, like Cleopatra's nose, decide fates.

I would say the question is not whether Indian lawyers turning into clerks, but whether you are even qualified to work in an LPO merely because you have an LLB?

In my opinion a law degree is far from sufficent even to engage in practice in Indian courts; but since I restrict myself to a discussion on legal outsourcing, for that, I would say, one definitely needs something more. A certificate course in legal process outsourcing if it's syllabus includes training in Legal Communications might help to at least teach the basics. But this course needs to be taught by people who have an idea of the legal processes involved in legal process outsourcing. Anyone seeking enrolment for such courses needs to consider this. See also the Global Legal Professional Certification Test .

The truth is however, that even without a law degree or any legal outsourcing diploma, one can still do most of the low end legal work done in any LPO ( and which is indeed done by paralegals abroad), provided one has a good command of English. The question therefore, is not whether back office work is turning Indian lawyers into clerks, but whether they have the competence to do it? The decisive factor is their command on the English language. And that is the whole truth.

Are you right for a startup -II

The last post generated some questions from job-seekers. A few issues are discussed here.

• · Most startups and companies employ persons with higher qualifications.

When I was debating whether to study for a higher degree in law, the judge I was working for then, said to me, "It's not the degrees, but what you can do with them that counts." That led to me not only getting my Masters but also to leaving him and going on to better things.

Education is nothing but a manual telling you what to do in order to succeed but ultimately success will depend on your ability to implement that teaching in your daily life.

Any company, large or small, would rather employ someone who has passion and ambition, who can prove that he/she can play different roles, who displays inherent skills like being canny and street-smart, leadership qualities, even aggressiveness, than someone with just a string of degrees.

Qualifications are important. As important as possessing a strong fishing line. But you eat only if you have the determination, patience and skill to use the line to catch that fish.

• · Companies employ women more readily, than men.

In the news is the Government of India’s latest decision to employ more women in government jobs. It is a fact that the fairer sex is generally believed to be more sincere, more compliant and less likely to run away with the office funds. Women also tend to put down roots and are less likely to job hop. They bond quickly and display far more loyalty than men do. That adds up to a lot of plus points. The downside is that they need more time off for child bearing, rearing, and home making.

Men on the other hand do not take as much time off, are prepared to work late, to come in at odd hours, and to take on heavier jobs. However male employees are far more likely to up and leave and not worry about the mess they might leave their employers in. Men also tend to bond less with their employing company.

However, no firm will employ exclusively on gender basis, except for organizations specifically instituted to provide jobs for women. The best employee base a company could have would be one with a slightly higher level of female to male employees and a finely mixed potpourri of all communities, religions and states, which would bring together persons with area and race-specific skills, adding to the richness of the work atmosphere and also enhancing productivity.

• · Too much emphasis is placed on communication skills.

In my opinion, not enough emphasis can be placed on communication skills. Face it guys, you have to learn to talk the talk. You need not be an expert in the language. Even people whose mother tongue is English routinely make grammatical and spelling mistakes. However, knowledge of basic grammatical English is a must.

Very often students and employees ask for “tips” to enable them to speak English well. No amount of “tips” can make you speak and write well. I have always maintained that you must think, speak, and write the language if you want to master it.

I also feel very strongly that training in Communications does not end with the training period. During training you learn the basics but in order for the training to have any effect, you must continue to think and speak in English at all times and not just when you are forced to do so. If not, all that you learned will be just so much water down the drain.

I saw a message posted the other day which read, “Say him to write to me.” If you do not know when to use “say” and “tell”, I, for one, would not employ you.

Obama and the Indian in the LPO.

Overheard recently, “Obama is out to close all the BPOs in India!”

Will President Obama really turn the tide of outsourcing back?  No. There could be lesser work offshored by the US. But it will be mainly the small-change projects that will not be outsourced. And most BPOs and KPOs here are all set to meet this deficit by turning their attention to Australian, UK, and European processes.

So far as LPOS are concerned, Mr. Obama’s policy of taxing the profits earned by offshorers could result in vendors indulging in cost-cutting this side of the pond to increase profits; and the principal area of this cost-cutting is going to be salaries.  One way of cost-cutting will be LPOs hiring mainly freshers on per-contract basis and paying them a minimum salary.  Another method that is fast catching on, is providing a “training period” of two or three months to new employees and/or paying them a small stipend.

Should this side of the pond worry?  I think not. Legal work demands  higher ethics, and a greater degree of confidentiality and security of data than any other field of work.  The attorney-client relationship is very like the doctor-patient one.  It is based on absolute trust- which even a small breach of confidentiality will absolutely ruin.  At the same time, the work produced by the LPOs has to be faultless, since no matter how high the level of trust, if the outcome of the litigation is affected because of  the shoddy work done by vending LPOs, the client is going to yell blue murder.  Therefore, sooner or later, every LPO is going to have to take a call on whether to hire freshers and risk less than perfect output, or sacrifice a percentage of profit and pay experienced professionals to provide a high quality of work.

Incidentally, it is this unique attorney-client relationship that is the root cause of the LPO industry taking a longer time to ramp up.  No matter how convinced a law firm is of the ability of an LPO to meet its efficiency and due- diligence standards, prudence dictates that it test the waters by sending out smaller jobs initially, and then graduate slowly to larger ones.

In his latest post  Mukul makes a conclusion that legal process outsourcing is no longer a hot career option for those interested in legal services. This sounds very much like what the naysayers were saying when Jerry Rao launched Mphasis-There was never going to be a future for those who choose to make a career in BPOs.  It is Jerry Rao and those who did take the leap who are still having the last laugh.  There is never going to be a dearth of lawyers opting for LPOs.  With the lawyers who passed out of law colleges in 1955 still practicing in courts today, where is the place for the hundreds of lawyers tumbling out of colleges each year?

Besides, I find many management students opting to do short-term courses in various branches of law, merely because they do not want to lose out on a chance to work in legal project management.  Many of my lawyer-colleagues with a dozen years and more of practice in Pune courts, are very keen to give it up and work in LPOS.

I do agree however, that if LPOs continue to provide only back-office job work to employees, this may inhibit the more talented legal professionals from entering the industry.  But this percentage is minuscule compared to the hundreds who will find even the more simple back office functions performed in LPOS challenging, mainly because they find English speaking a challenge.

A few LPOs are making hay by providing training in US Law and English language at a fee while they wait for the bigger projects to come in.  Wise ones!  It is not only those who hit the gold lode but also those who provide the spades that win.