A few months ago I had posed the question, ‘What is the LPO’s Kanban?’ and I’ve since heard a variety of opinions and interesting perspectives on how Legal Process Outsourcing will bring innovative ideas to market.  One such innovation is currently making waves in LPO news circles and it comes from Integreon, a market leader in the legal outsourcing landscape.  I had the pleasure of discussing Integreon’s newly launched E-Discovery product Seek & Collect™  with Mark Ross, VP Legal Services & Jeffery Fehrman, VP Forensics & Consulting to learn more about how this product impacts E-Discovery services. 

I would like to thank Mark & Jeffery for taking the time out for this insightful Q&A.  We had an opportunity to also get their thoughts on LPO’s evolution through Mark’s recent participation in the ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission hearings in San Francisco on outsourcing this month.

LPOSavvy: Tell us what Seek & Collect™ aims to do for legal counsel and how Integreon conceived of this product?

JEFFERY: Integreon’s forensics team noticed the unmet need in the e-discovery market for a “simple” solution that could quickly pull together a defensible set of evidence from many geographic locations.

Seek & Collect simplifies the e-discovery process by utilizing plug-and-play appliances – either thumb drives or external hard drives – which use custom-built software to identify and collect relevant ESI (electronically stored information) in a defensible manner.

Seek & Collect eliminates the need for physical data collection by forensic experts, a step in the e-discovery process that can be cost-prohibitive and highly disruptive for many companies. By eliminating this need, we help our clients save time and considerable e-discovery costs.

LPOSavvy: You call it an ‘appliance,’ how is it used?

JEFFERY: When a client engages with Integreon for the Seek & Collect service, our forensic experts first consult with the client’s counsel to determine which critical files are needed for preservation. Then, our experts configure the device to collect forensically sound, logical copies of those critical files and their directories. We then send the devices to data custodians via traceable courier. When clients’ individual data custodians receive the Seek & Collect devices, they plug them into their computers, and the appliance automatically executes the software – collecting ESI in a secure, defensible manner. Then, each individual returns the appliance in the provided return envelope, which is tracked until it returns to Integreon’s Electronic Evidence Labs.

Throughout the entire process, Integreon adheres to the National Institute of Justice’s standards for preserving the authenticity and integrity of evidence.

LPOSavvy: You would think that a tool of this type was already in use, so how is this different from what is currently employed by organizations worldwide?

JEFFERY: The custom-built Seek & Collect software is unique not only because it automates the process, but because it strictly adheres to industry standards for data integrity to avoid data spoliation.

To do this, Seek & Collect uses unique hash-value identifiers for all collected files, which are then saved in an encrypted archive container for secure transport. The use of a traceable courier also preserves the chain of custody and eliminates spoliation. We’ve perfected this methodology with years of experience, and made a simple tool that anyone can use, regardless of their location or knowledge of data forensics.

Once the ESI is harvested and returned to Integreon, we store the data in the secure evidence room within our state-of-the-art Electronic Evidence Labs. The evidence room includes a closed IT network, constant video surveillance and requires the use of two sets of controls for access to the room – keycard and biometric. We take data preservation seriously; the chain of custody for our clients’ data is never in question.

LPOSavvy:  I’m sure some readers will find it interesting that a legal process outsourcing company has brought such an innovation to market. It’s unexpected to some people. How do you see Integreon fitting into the LPO landscape? Do you view yourselves as an LPO?

MARK: Is it really unexpected? Keep in mind that technology lies at the heart of our legal solutions, from our own proprietary technology to the best-of-breed third party technology from our partners. Our proprietary technology includes a market leading e-discovery review platform, eView, as well as contract and workflow technology, Tachyon. By leveraging best-of-breed technology as the foundation of our legal solutions, we are able to continuously create ongoing efficiencies for our clients and enhance the quality of output.

As part of our mission, we are constantly scanning the horizon for technologies that may benefit our clients’ businesses, and enable them to focus on their highest and best use. Focusing on innovation is one way of delivering the best results.

While Integreon offers the broadest set of services in the LPO industry, we are constantly expanding the scope of the services we offer, beyond just legal process outsourcing. We serve demanding professionals across a wide variety of industries providing them with:

a. Research solutions
b. Business solutions
c. Discovery solutions
d. KPO
e. And of course, LPO

LPOSavvy: In light of recent headlines and the recent ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission hearings in San Francisco on outsourcing, what kind of impact does Integreon’s introduction of Seek & Collect have on the global discussion on legal outsourcing?

MARK: The introduction of Seek & Collect is another example of our continuous endeavors to innovate within the legal services arena and more specifically our electronic discovery services.
I was privileged to have been invited to provide testimony to the recent Ethics 20/20 Commission hearing in San Francisco. We also provided a formal response to the ABA in conjunction with our oral testimony and advised that:

“Integreon includes its e-Discovery (EDD) unit within its Legal Solutions group.  We understand that the ABA and many lawyers perceive LPO as distinct from EDD.  We think that over time, that distinction is not sustainable.  The line between document review and technology is blurring.  Furthermore, several LPO and EDD providers (Integreon included) offer both LPO and EDD services because of the increasingly tight connection between the technology tasks of collecting, processing, hosting, and producing data and the human task of manually reviewing documents.”

We believe that the ABA consideration of the ethics of outsourcing should also consider EDD.

LPOSavvy:  Mark, being that you have been involved with legal process outsourcing for some time, how do you feel legal process outsourcing will evolve? How has it evolved in your view thus far?

MARK:  I’ve been involved in the LPO industry now for well over seven years, and during that time, both the procurement and provider sides of the market have evolved dramatically.

We are now entering the realm of what I categorize as LPO 2.0. This second wave of LPO engagements is characterized by a number of trends as major corporations and BigLaw look to maximize the value of their legal and professional staff, while providing legal support in the most efficient, cost-effective manner possible. There are some over-arching trends that are worth highlighting:

• Increased volume of legal activity (driven by increased business and more regulation) is coupled with constraints on legal spending. This means that organizations need to look closely at their legal activities and identify which functions can be performed more efficiently. Integreon LPO helps by improving processes, integrating technology and engaging lower cost resources (onshore or offshore).
• Major corporations – especially financial institutions, high-tech and pharmaceutical companies – continue to drive LPO growth and are now engaging LPOs on a multi-functional basis as part of their legal services models. For example, LPOs are now providing discovery, contract, IP and research solutions to the same organization.
• Law firms are becoming increasingly engaged in LPO as they feel the pressure from the legal market to find ways to deliver better value for routine legal tasks. Many are called to the table by their corporate clients, but others are proactively turning to LPO as a strategic method of gaining competitive advantage.
• Discovery needs fluctuate. It’s impractical for a law firm or company to constantly adjust its own workforce to meet these needs. By working with an LPO, organizations have the ability to expand and contract services to meet fluctuating requirements.
• In the U.K., the Legal Services Act will have a big impact. This year (2010) will be a watershed year for UK-based law firms as they look to reorganize and alter their business strategies to remain competitive after the Legal Services Act is fully implemented in 2011. I anticipate that over the coming years, the U.K. legal market will witness the emergence of a new collaborative model for the delivery of legal services, comprised of traditional law firm, virtual law firm, LPO, and possibly private equity financing.
• While India continues to be an important fulfillment market for LPO with 85% of offshore legal outsourcing vendors primarily or exclusively located there, other emerging destinations are coming to the forefront, such as South Africa and the Philippines, where we have offices. South Africa is proving particularly popular with U.K. clients, and Manila with U.S. clients. Overall, we see a trend that LPO is globalizing – it’s not just about India, but about finding the right mix of process, technology and resource efficiencies to meet the customers’ needs.

LPOSavvy: What other developments can we expect from Integreon in the future? Seems you’ve raised your own bar for the future.

MARK: Innovation is the key at Integreon. We will continue to invest heavily in people, process and technology to enable our clients to operate more effectively and efficiently. We see ourselves as a collaborative partner to law firms and in-house legal teams as together we redefine the modus operandi of [the] legal services delivery.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LpoSavvy/~3/VAw_hMVlXdA/index.php

It may be time for law firms to "productize" their offerings, the way that other professional services organizations began doing many years ago.

Source: http://thenewlegalnormal.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/is-it-time-for-legal-products/

Interesting article at ALB Legal News, which the piece’s title alone caught my attention. “Corporates could halve their legal costs by outsourcing less.”  Interesting, right?  My first thought was how could this be?  The report’s statistics describe the Australian and New Zealand legal market.  Based on what Richard Stock, Catalyst Consulting Director, states, these departments are paying too much for the same work they could do in-house.  He sums up by stating that they could stand to improve their forecasting requirements to help reduce the costs.

At first reaction:
a.) Who are these outsourced providers - onshore or offshore?
b.) Assuming the firms are well aware of the cost, how could this even continue to happen?

It’s interesting to read such a story since it tends to go against much of everything that outsourcing represents.  At first read, it actually appears to go against commonsense.  But it’s possible that whether or not these providers are on or offshore, they may be well worth top dollar, or in this case top AUD & NZD dollar.  Better forecasting obviously could help, but they may not be truly sourcing their legal outsourcing providers to minimize costs.

There could be a number of reasons for their top value to the firm, and whatever those reasons may be, it’s apparent the 160 organizations studied in the report have a good reason to continue to spend and secure these providers.  Right?  Why else would this be occurring?  I also imagine this market is perhaps comparable to the US, UK, and Canada.  That makes me wonder if a similar situation exists in some sector of these markets as well.  However, it’s possible this is a unique situation in Australia and New Zealand.

Of course there seems to be some opportunity for cost savings for the firms - there is always some money left on the table.  But I think the point is that we can assume these firms are well enough aware and continue to procure their legal support from legal process outsourcing providers despite the higher cost.   Unless we cannot make such an assumption?

The ALB story ends with an indication that further details will be shared in a follow up article.  I’m looking forward to it. Either they're aware of the higher cost and happy with their relationships, or there's a greater value that cannot be measured in costs alone that justifies the spend. We should be interested to find out.

 

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LpoSavvy/~3/H7rFz6DJE5c/index.php

Despite the oppressive heat that is summer in Washington, DC, my mind is firmly fixed on January 1 and the 2011 sales and marketing program for Womble Carlyle.  Yep, it’s budget time again, so it’s time for some resolutions. Disclaimer:  I work for 150 partners, who have their own imaginations and opinions.   Translation:  My sales [...]

Source: http://thenewlegalnormal.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/in-august-some-2011-new-years-resolutions/