Even though there aren’t many jobs available for tech experts in the law profession, those that have experience in litigation support or e-discovery can expect to be able to obtain higher salaries than they have in the past, simply because there aren’t that many professionals out there that fit the criteria. It’s a simply case of supply and demand—with a limited supply of these tech professionals, they’re able to demand more money. For example, Robert Half predicts that litigation support/e-discovery directors can expect an approximately 6% increase on average in their salary, bringing the average range between $101,000 and $130,050. Tech professionals working in major markets such as New York can expect much more, though, with an average salary of $230,000 or more. Chief information officers can also expect to see an increase in their earnings, and their salaries can fall into the range of $300,000 to $500,000 at top law firms. As the global practice leader in law firm management at Major, Lindsey & Africa, Amanda K. Brady, explains, “It can be lucrative …. but there’s just not a lot of these jobs.”

As tech-related fields continue to grow, though, tech professionals can expect to see more opportunities for working in law. For example, multidisciplinary teams containing professionals knowledgeable about networks and information security are predicted to become more common for firms who have practice groups centering on cybersecurity or privacy. Additionally, many firms are expected to create practice groups for these kind of tech concerns if they have not already. With this much growth in the future, tech experts can look forward to salaries continuing to rise. According to Brady, “There’s only an upward projectory here. The demand will only continue.”

Though the prospect of a better salary may attract many tech professionals to law, they should keep in mind that the workplace culture found at a law firm can be very different from what they are used to. It isn’t entrepreneurial, like the environment found at a startup. Additionally, tech professionals, especially chief information officers, are often paid very well because technology can present a huge risk to the firm. If the tech systems are not kept up to par by the chief information officer and other tech employees, the firm’s reputation can suffer. Those looking to work in a law firm should keep the above in mind, but in addition to a higher salary, tech professional may also look forward to being involved in many different parts of the firms and handling many responsibilities.

Article via Legaltech News, September 25, 2015

Photo: Cash Money (part two) via Jeremy Yerse [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

 

Gone are the days when law firms could rely on business from traditional sources. Due to the financial crisis in 2008, many law firms are still operating on a leaner staff and are looking for ways to cut expenses. To mitigate this need firms are looking to grow their expertise by connecting with outside experts, while also lowering their costs. In the information age, this means relying more on external digital sources for research instead of traditional in house law libraries.

Many prominent law firms have cut their costs by shrinking the size of their law library. In this leaner model, law firms cannot afford the costs of duplicate content and a buffet style approach to purchasing information. The demand for sophisticated research has increased, making law firms more dependent on access to vast amounts of content.

Two venders, LexisNexis and Westlaw are leading the market of law firms looking to meet the high information demand. As outsourcing has become more accepted in the legal community, there are more new companies coming aboard to meet legal information needs. Outsourced consultants are valuable to law firms because they can deliver high level services and expertise at scale. The companies allow law firms to take advantage of both broad and deep information, along with industry expertise, something that in house libraries alone cannot match.

For law firms, this means a lower administrative burden while increasing efficiency. As law firms conform and adjust to a changing market and economy, these services offer a means of staying relevant and competitive.

 

Article via LegalTechNews, 1 October 2015

Photo: law books via  Mr.TinDC [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

 

Volkswagon has been in the news lately because of a scandal involving software used to trick emissions tests on diesel vehicles.  The software was rigged to allow their diesel vehicles to pass their emissions test even though the emissions from the vehicles are well above the standard. Immediately following the news, the US has issued a recall for the vehicles, as well as a federal probe to find out what the company knew and when. In the meantime, lawsuits are being filed all around the country.

Robert Clifford, a prominent plantiff lawyer, expects a consolidation of lawsuits in the near future. Clifford has held a number of leadership roles in the American Bar Association and filed a suit against Volkswagen. “No doubt about it, there will be an MDL [multi-district litigation] here,” said Clifford. An overview done by the Wall Street Journal further confirms that laywers are looking to consolidate the lawsuits against Volkswagon.

Amie Parsons, a real estate agent in Dallas, recently filed lawsuit against Volkswagon. Parsons states that Volkswagon’s dishonesty seriously affects her bottom line as a real estate agent. Her attorney, Charles “Trey” Branham, spoke to a newspaper on her behalf. He stated that his client drives people around everyday for her profession, and [the Volkswagon scandal] causes her a big problem. Branham goes on to say “…it is something that affects real people on a daily basis, and it is a problem for them, not to mention the problem of putting 40 times the legal limit of pollution into the air.”

 

 

Article via ABAJournal, 29 September 2015

Photo: VW Kombi via Long Road Photography [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

A southern California company and former AT&T sales reps are being sued by AT&T Mobility. They are accused of uploading malicious software to unlock phones so that the phones can be used by any wireless network without a contract. It is likely that the sales reps were hoping to exploit the resale market for cell phones.

Lawyers for AT&T Mobility stated that schemes like this are not uncommon. The lawsuit names SwiftUnlocks, as the southern California company referenced above. This is a company that unlocks cell phones for a fee. The lawsuit goes on to describe a scheme that involves the former sales reps profiting from using SwiftUnlocks to unlock phones in milliseconds. It was precisely the act of unlocking many phones so quickly, that drew attention to these sales reps, eventually promoting an investigation.

It is alleged that the former reps earned between $10,000 and $20,000 from Swift Unlocks before tipping off their bosses with their questionable behavior.

Although the suit does not mention criminal fraud, it could still prove expensive for Swift Unlocks and the former sales reps. It is expected that the damages would include lost profit as well as factoring in the revenue that the sales reps made during their alleged scheme.

Article via CNET, 19 September 2015

Photo: This trip to the at&t store is taking longer than I expected via Keith Lam [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

On Tuesday, Uber requested an appeal to a ruling made earlier this year that determined Uber drivers are employees and not independent contractors. The company has claimed that it is merely an app and not an employer of the nearly 160,000 drivers that are affliated with Uber in the US.

In an effort to defend itself again a class-action suit, uber filed a motion shortly after the ruling which opposes any class action driver suit. The company claims that the few drivers who believe that the Uber should reimburse them for expenses and tips do not represent the majority of drivers who are happy with the relationship that they have with the tech company.

But on September 1, US District Judge Edward Chen approved a class action status for that lawsuit. Uber is currently appealing this ruling in the hopes that the appeal court with reverse the judges order. In a 22 page request for appeal, Uber attorney Ted Boutrous wrote,”The potential ramifications of this closely-watched class-certification order are difficult to overstate.”

Uber has been battling this case since 2013 in an effort to get it thrown out. If the court upholds the Judge’s decision it would mean big changes for Uber. Not only would it have to start paying for expenses, such as vehicle upkeep, but it would also have to pay other costs such as social security, health care, paid time off and overtime.

 

Article via CNET, 15 September 2015

Photo: Taxi Driver/Santiago, Chile via Hotch Chang[Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

 James C. Underhill Jr., an attorney in Colorado, has found himself in hot water after a fee dispute with clients went wrong.
A married couple that retained the lawyer’s services claimed that the fee collection that Mr. Underhill enforced was not what they had all verbally agreed to. When Mr. Underhill insisted on this new structure of payment, the couple left the lawyer and posted negative reviews for him on a review site.

Instead of taking it in stride, or countering the negative reviews with positive ones, Mr. Underhill struck back. As their lawyer, Mr. Underhill was privy to private conversations and information over the course of representing the couple. He used this information to publicly shame the couple in postings on the internet. He then sued the couple for defamation. When he lost his first suit, he waged a second one claiming that the couple had made other defamatory complaints about him on the internet.

This case(the full decision is posted at the end of the article here) has brought up how the law is affected by technology in a variety of ways. If a client had made a complaint 30 years ago, Mr. Underhill would have been able to expose attorney client information at the state bar. This has been allowed because attorneys must be able to protect their reputation. 30 years ago, this couple’s only way to lodge a complaint would have been by going to the state bar. Now, the result for Mr. Underhill is an 18 month suspension.

In these times, the internet offers a much quicker and more effective way of getting a complaint noticed. The law, unfortunately, has just not caught up with technology yet. In the meantime, lawyers will have to walk a fine line. They must recognize that although they will be judged in a more traditional setting, they have to operate in a world optimized for communication that the law is not able to regulate with the same veracity.

Article via AboveTheLaw, 8 September 2015

Photo: Night Work via Thomas Heylan[Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]