• Home
• Jurisdictions
  • Countries
  • Multinational Organizations
• Services Outsourced
  • Finance/ Accounting
  • Legal
  • Human Resources
  • Information Technology
  • Customer Care
  • Other
• Industries
• Sourcing Models
  • Shared Services – Captives
  • Alternative Structures
  • Pricing
  • Financial Engineering
  • Innovation
• Resources
  • Software Tools
  • Definitions
  • Outsourcing 101 – Basics
  • Sourcing Advisors
  • Benchmarkers
• Events
  • Press
  • Past Events / Webinars
  • Upcoming Events
• Archives
  • Newsletter Article Archives
  • Newsletter Archives

Outsourcing Law & Business Journal™ – April/May 2012

May 22, 2012 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.

OUTSOURCING LAW & BUSINESS JOURNAL™ : Strategies and rules for adding value and improving legal and regulation compliance through business process management techniques in strategic alliances, joint ventures, shared services and cost-effective, durable and flexible sourcing of services. www.outsourcing-law.com. Visit our blog at http://blog.outsourcing-law.com.

Insights by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. Editor. www.biercekenerson.com.

Vol. 12,  No. 4,  April/May 2012

_____________________________________

Announcement:

Outsourcing Law & Business Journal™ – March 2012

March 21, 2012 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.

Computer-Assisted Document Review in e-Discovery Can Avert Manual Review, Even if Not 100% Certain: “Predictive Coding” Protocol Passes Muster

March 21, 2012 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.

When can parties rely upon nearly fully-automated “Big Data” procedures under U.S. federal e-discovery rules?  In a landmark class-action decision under the Equal Pay Act and Fair Labor Standards Act for gender discrimination and pregnancy discrimination, U.S. federal Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck ruled on February 24, 2012, that “predictive coding” can be legally sufficient even though it fails to meet a 100% confidence level.  The decision is welcome news for business defendants accused of mass torts or repeated wrongful practices under class action litigation procedures.  It is also welcome news for software developers that market computer-driven “relevancy” analysis, but bad news for FTE-based legal process outsourcing vendors hoping for large labor-intensive discovery requirements.

In short, this precedent adopts labor-saving software technology in lieu of manual review of Big Data in large litigations.

The Importance of E-Discovery in Class Actions, Collective Actions and Mass Torts. In Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, ___ F3d ___, (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), the defendants were accused of discriminating against a class of women employees, relating to pay rates, promotions, terminations, demotions and /or job assignments, based on female gender and pregnancy status.  The plaintiffs’ lawyers bundled the claims into a class action in order to maximize damages and settlement potential.  In deciding whether to settle, defendants in such situations fight to escape a judicial determination that the claims are sufficiently similar to meet the requirements of a class action.  Accordingly, the discovery process can be decisive in defeating the plaintiffs’ claim, since an adverse decision on class action requirements can dissuade contingency fee plaintiffs’ lawyers from further investment of their own time and expenses.

As a result, it is essential for defendants in such class action cases, “collective action” claims (for opt-in claims) and any other large-document litigation to minimize the burdens of discovery up to the point of the decision whether the plaintiffs’ claims are sufficiently common to move forward as a class action.

Computer-Assisted E-Discovery: Predictive Coding. Judge Peck quoted his own prior published article to explain “computer-assisted document review.”

By computer-assisted coding, I mean tools (different vendors use different names) that use sophisticated algorithms to enable the computer to determine relevance, based on interaction with (i.e., training by) a human reviewer.

Unlike manual review, where the review is done by the most junior staff, computer-assisted coding involves a senior partner (or [small] team) who review and code a “seed set” of documents. The computer identifies properties of those documents that it uses to code other documents. As the senior reviewer continues to code more sample documents, the computer predicts the reviewer’s coding. Or, the computer codes some documents and asks the senior reviewer for feedback.

When the system’s predictions and the reviewer’s coding sufficiently coincide, the system has learned enough to make confident predictions for the remaining documents. Typically, the senior lawyer (or team) needs to review only a few thousand documents to train the computer.  Some systems produce a simple yes/no as to relevance, while others give a relevance score (say, on a 0 to 100 basis) that counsel can use to prioritize review.   For example, a score above 50 may produce 97% of the relevant documents, but constitutes only 20% of the entire document set.

Counsel may decide, after sampling and quality control tests, that documents with a score of below IS are so highly likely to be irrelevant that no further human review is necessary. Counsel can also decide the cost-benefit of manual review of the documents with scores of 15-50.  Slip Op., at p. 4.

An Acceptable Predictive Coding Protocol. After rejecting several objections by plaintiffs’ counsel concerning reliability of computer-assisted coding, Judge Peck ruled that it would be acceptable to adopt a predictive coding protocol with the following procedures:

• The court (or an agreement of the parties) determines which custodians (and other sources) of electronically stored information (“ESI”) are to be the subjects of the discovery process (e.g., the directly involved employees or all persons potentially suspected of being wrongdoers).

• The parties agree to identify key words and other tags (which could include metatags) for searching, as well as the Boolean logic (“and”,” “and/or”, “and X but not Y”, etc).

• The court (or an agreement of the parties) determines the percentage of confidence required before the software that conducts the electronic search of ESI can be determined to be legally adequate.  (In this case, Judge Peck ruled that a 95% level of confidence was legally sufficient).

• The parties (under judicial review) create a “seed set” of documents to train the software for coding by degree of relevancy.  In this case, the initial seed set was approximately 2,400 documents.

• The parties (or the Court) decide(s) upon the sources of ESI, including e-mails, Cloud-based software such as SalesForce.com, databases and other e-repositories.

• The defendants agreed to turn over all documents that the computerized predictive coding showed was adequate, subject to exclusion under attorney-client privilege.

• The parties bring their e-discovery software consultants to court to argue the questions of reliability and technical “levels of confidence” in their software products and the ability to train software by iteratively tweaking the search parameters and Boolean logic.

• The defendant proposed, and the court agreed, to seven rounds of iterations of computer-assisted predictive coding, followed by human confirmation and review of the results and training of the software to improve the level of confidence.

  After the seventh round, to determine if the computer is well trained and stable, MSL would review a random sample (of 2,399 documents) from the discards (i.e., documents coded as non-relevant) to make sure the documents determined by the software to not be relevant do not, in fact, contain highly-relevant documents. (2/8/12 Conf. Tr. at 74-75.) For each of the seven rounds and the final quality-check random sample, MSL agreed that it would show plaintiffs all the documents it looked at including those deemed not relevant (except for privileged documents). (2/8/12 Conf. Tr.at 76.).  Slip Op., at p. 11.

The Legal Logic of Computer Logic.  In evaluating the use of computer software instead of human reviewers, Judge Peck cited academic conclusions that computer-assisted discovery could be more effective than manual discovery.

The objective of review in e-Discovery is to identify as many relevant documents as possible, while reviewing as few non-relevant documents as possible. Recall is the fraction of relevant documents identified during a review; precision is the fraction of identified documents that are relevant. Thus, recall is a measure of completeness, while precision is a measure of accuracy or correctness. The goal is for the review method to result in higher recall and higher precision than another review method, at a cost proportionate to the “value” of the case. See, e.g.. Maura R. Grossman & Gordon V. Cormack, Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient Than Exhaustive Manual Review, Rich. J.L.& Tech., Spring 2011, at 8-9, available at http://jolt.richmond.edu/vl7i3/articlel l.pdf. Slip Op., at p.17.

The Da Silva Moore, et.al. v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group decision appears to be the first to explore and justify the use of computer-based protocols for relevancy search in e-discovery.  It suggests that manual review will become outdated and obsolete if sufficient “level of confidence” can be achieved using iterations of corrective instructions.

This decision issues a clarion call to use technology to unclog the problems that technology created in e-Discovery.  And, in legal process outsourcing, this decision will rebalance the equilibrium of pre-trial discovery burdens.  LPO will now move towards more senior level analysis such as for legal privilege and other objections to disclosure.  The semi automation of e-Discovery should also benefit both adversaries.  Costs saved from wasted manual verification of relevancy of a large volume of potentially relevant documents can be allocated to settlement payments if liability seems clear enough.  This decision also serves as a landmark for legal process outsourcing.  It defines a workflow for litigation to minimize labor and optimize the training of intelligent computer tools. It retains human control and responsibility but benefits from information technology tools.

Outsourcing Law & Business Journal™: December 2009

December 23, 2009 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.

OUTSOURCING LAW & BUSINESS JOURNAL (™) : Strategies and rules for adding value and improving legal and regulation compliance through business process management techniques in strategic alliances, joint ventures, shared services and cost-effective, durable and flexible sourcing of services. www.outsourcing-law.com. Visit our blog at http://blog.outsourcing-law.com for commentary on current events.

Insights by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C., Editors.   www.biercekenerson.com

Season’s Readings (and Greetings) from Bierce & Kenerson, PC, Outsourcing-Law.com and our E-newsletter.
Holiday Greetings and welcome to this first edition of an exciting re-launched Outsourcing-Law.com™ website and e-newsletter!  We want your feedback on the new Beta site as well as your contributions of content on international jurisdictions or legal issues in governance, risk management and compliance.  Please contact us.  See you in the New Year!

Vol. 9, No. 12 (December, 2009)

___________________________

1.  E-Discovery and Legal Process Outsourcing: EDRM Process Design and Choices between Outsourcing vs. Insourcing

2.  When is a Contractual Limitation of Liability Invalid and Unenforceable?  American Public Policy Exceptions to Exculpatory Clauses in Telecommunications.

3.  Humor.

4.  Conferences.

_______________________________

1.  E-Discovery and Legal Process Outsourcing: EDRM Process Design and Choices between Outsourcing vs. Insourcing. State and federal rules of civil procedure and emerging common law of the discovery process impose significant costs on businesses that are engaged in litigation. Pre-trial “discovery” serves to narrow the issues in dispute by forcing the disclosure of records, including electronically stored information (“ESI”) for judicial economy, to narrow the scope of disputed issues for adjudication (such as through motions for partial summary judgment, admissions and prior inconsistent statements), and to speed the actual trial process. E-discovery has become a daily challenge for the General Counsel, the CIO, the COO and the Risk Management Department. They face a choice of policies, procedures and technologies for insourcing (such as by using forensic software and employed staff) or outsourcing for electronic records discovery management (“EDRM”) in e-discovery. This article explores some of the differences between insourcing and outsourcing in terms of records management / EDRM, legal requirements for protection and production of electronic records, project management in forensic record examination, litigation readiness, knowledge management, risk management, ethics and legal compliance.  To see the complete article, please click here.

2. When is a Contractual Limitation of Liability Invalid and Unenforceable?  American Public Policy Exceptions to Exculpatory Clauses in Telecommunications. An essential element of risk management in any commercial contract for the sale of services or goods is the clause limiting the vendor’s liability.  In the sale of goods, the policy limitations are set forth in the Uniform Commercial Code, which invalidates clauses that deprive the customer of an “essential remedy” or the clause is part of an abuse of a consumer under a contract of adhesion, and under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and similar state laws. In the sale of services, the policy limitations reflect common law, which may include a judicial analysis of regulations and the fundamental nature of the relationship between the service provider and the enterprise customer.

A decision by a New York State Supreme Court judge in November 2009 highlights the limits on exculpatory clauses under American jurisprudence under principles of gross negligence, willful misconduct, “special duty,” breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing and prima facie tort. In addition, other legal theories – such as fraud, intentional interference with business relationship, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and prima facie tort – might not be available to enterprise customers for a simple failure by the service provider to deliver proper accounting information relating to its services.  Click here for the complete article.

3. Humor.

Legal Process Outsourcing, n. (1) everything legal but not done by a lawyer; (2) everything done by a lawyer but not legal in your jurisdiction; (3) everything non-legal but legal because it’s paralegal.

Contract, n. (1) an enforceable expression of the meeting of the minds; (2) a meeting of the wallets

4.  Conferences.

January, 24-26, 2010, IQPC Business Process Outsourcing and Shared Services Exchange 2010, San Diego, California. This is an invitation-only gathering for VP and C-Level senior Shared Services and Outsourcing executives made up of highly crafted, executive level conference sessions, interactive “Brain Weave” discussions, engaging networking opportunities and strategic one-on-one advisory meetings between solution providers and delegates. With a distinguished speaking faculty from McGraw-Hill, Ingram Micro and Pfizer, amongst others, the seats at the 2010 Exchange are limited and filling up quickly. We have limited complimentary invitations available for qualified delegates for a limited time. Please give us your reference ‘Outsourcing Law’ when inquiring. There are solution provider opportunities also available for companies who want to be represented. You can request your invitation at exchange@iqpc.com, call at 1866-296-4580 or visit their website.

January 28-29, 2010, Global Services Conference, Jersey City, New Jersey. Through the entire episode of the global economic meltdown, the global outsourcing services industry has seen the rise of a group of suppliers who are redefining many traditional management practices; changing the long-standing model for contracting offshore services; collaborating with clients in new ways; and gaining more control over outsourcing strategies. This conference focuses on these changes in the global services model and the learning from this period.  For more information, visit their website

February 22-24, 2010, SSON and IQPC 8th Procure-to-Pay Summit, Miami, Florida focuses on “Fostering Smart Partnerships to Optimize Cash Flow and Deliver Positive Business Outcomes from End to End.”  This Summit is all about making the most of your smart partnerships to increase cash flow and improve business outcomes as companies move away from a reactionary mode toward sustainable practices.  While we may not yet be out of the woods, so to speak, it is clear that the economic landscape in 2009 has created opportunities for companies to create new synergies with their P2P partners to help promote growth for 2010 and beyond.  For more information, click here.

February 24-25, 2010, IQPC’s 3rd E-Discovery for Financial Services Conference, New York, New York. Learn the Best Review, Retention and Destruction Procedures to Cut Costs and Response Time During a Financially Troubled Economy. This event examines, from the unique perspective of high-level financial executives, how the challenges of each financial sector intersect with e-discovery proceedings and processes. View the complete program agenda at www.ediscoveryevent.com/finance.

March 22-26, 2010, SSON presents the 14th Annual North American Shared Services & Outsourcing Week, Orlando , FL. Here’s a sneak peek of new and enhanced features, which include:

• Speakers from Top Companies:Aramark, Arbys/Wendy’s, AstraZeneca, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Conagra Foods, General Motors, Kellogg, Kraft, Microsoft, Monster, NASA, Northrop Grumman, Oakley, Perdue Farms, Schering Plough, Warner Brothers and more
• G8: Global Sourcing Think Tank Eliminating the White Noise:  The first ever neutral platform to help shape a common industry agenda in the US
• Under the C-Suite Spotlight with Rene Carayol, An Exclusive Onstage CXO Interview : Board-room revelations regarding shared service & sourcing model strategy
• New, Strong, Business Outcome-Focused Content : 8 content-intense tracks, from Planning & Launching and BPO Evolution to IACCM’s Contracting to Collaboration
• Enhanced Annual Features: Quick Wins Energizers, Speed Networking, Blue Sky Innovation Room for Mature SSO’s, and more.

Please contact Kim Vigilia directly at 1-212-885-2753 or at kim.vigilia@iqpc.com with your special code IUS_OSL_#1 to get a 20% discount off the all-access pass. You can also visit the website at www.sharedservicesweek.com.

March, 25-26, 2010, American Conference Institute’s 4th National Forum on Reducing Legal Costs, Dallas, Texas. This essential cross-industry benchmarking forum gathers together more than 30 senior corporate counsel and legal sourcing managers responsible for cost-reduction success stories, as well as leaders from law firms who are pioneers in the alternative fee world, to guide those in attendance on the complexities of keeping legal department costs in check. Now in its fourth installment, this event also offers unique networking opportunities with senior practitioners in the field, includingin-house counsel across a wide spectrum of companies and industries.  For more information, visit their website.

******************************************

FEEDBACK: This newsletter addresses legal issues in sourcing of IT, HR, finance and accounting, procurement, logistics, manufacturing, customer relationship management including outsourcing, shared services, BOT and strategic acquisitions for sourcing. Send us your suggestions for article topics, or report a broken link at: webmaster@outsourcing-law.com The information provided herein does not necessarily constitute the opinion of Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. or any author or its clients. This newsletter is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Reproductions must include our copyright notice. For reprint permission, please contact: publisher@outsourcing-law.com . Edited by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. Copyright (c) 2009, Outsourcing Law Global LLC. All rights reserved.  Editor in Chief: William Bierce of Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. located at 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2920, New York, NY 10170, 212-840-0080.

E-Discovery and Legal Process Outsourcing: ESIM Process Design and Choices between Outsourcing vs. Insourcing

December 21, 2009 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.

State and federal rules of civil procedure and emerging common law of the discovery process impose significant costs on businesses that are engaged in litigation. Pre-trial “discovery” serves to narrow the issues in dispute by forcing the disclosure of records, including electronically stored information (“ESI”) for judicial economy, to narrow the scope of disputed issues for adjudication (such as through motions for partial summary judgment, admissions and prior inconsistent statements), and to speed the actual trial process. E-discovery has become a daily challenge for the General Counsel, the CIO, the COO and the Risk Management Department.  They face a choice of policies, procedures and technologies for insourcing (such as by using forensic software and employed staff) or outsourcing for electronic records discovery management.  This article explores some of the differences between insourcing and outsourcing in terms of ESI records management,  legal requirements for protection and production of electronic records, project management in forensic record examination, litigation readiness, knowledge management, risk management, ethics and legal compliance.

I. E-DISCOVERY AS A SUB-PROCESS OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT.

Record and Information Management (“RIM”) Policies and ESI Management (“ESIM”). The demands of e-discovery highlight the challenges of developing and managing effective governance policies and procedures for information of all kinds, including ESI, and the challenge of adopting and updating an ESI management (“ESIM”) plan for “business as usual.”  The International Standards Organization has developed a records management standard (ISO 15489-1, at www.iso.org). ARMA International (www.arma.org) has identified eight standards for records and information management (“RIM”), namely, accountability, integrity, protection, policy compliance, retrievability/ availability, retention, disposition and transparency.

Memory-storage devices have proliferated, challenging the company’s records custodian. In addition to computers, there are cell phones, cameras (stand-alone or in cell phones), scanners, facsimile machines, USB “key” drives, backup hard drives and other storage devices. All pose a challenge for a fully compliant response to an e-discovery request.

Legal Requirements for Protection and Production of E-Records. Federal and state rules of civil procedure have evolved to include electronic records. See F.R.Civ. P. 26(b), 34 and 45 (subpoenas) and F. R. Evid. 901(a) (authenticity). State procedural rules have been adopted to implement the Uniform Rules Relating to Discovery of Electronically Stored Information issued by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. [Copy available at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/udoera/2007_final.htm]. Basic common law, statutory and civil procedure rules in e-discovery start with similar requirements:

• Protection: preservation of ESI through a “litigation hold” to prevent inadvertent loss when a third party demand has been made, or it has become reasonably foreseeable that such a demand will be made, and ensuring that the in-house attorney’s instruction is actually implemented (for example, avoiding the inadvertent over-writing of storage and backup tapes).
• Accountability: identifying the scope and “proportionality” of the e-discovery requirements in relation to the overall scope of the dispute.
• Cost allocation: allocating costs that are reasonable to the producing party and costs that are unreasonable to the requesting party.
• Cost management: using search terms and other cost-effective automated search technologies to get the reasonable or “agreed” coverage for the initial triage, fulfilling the approach that information technology can solve the problem of searching massive records databases using search technologies. See, e.g., Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 2004 WL 1620866 (SDNY July 20, 2004, Judge Scheindlin) and other rulings in the same case, at 217 F.R.D. 309 (SDNY 2003), 216 FRD 280 (SDNY 2003) and 2003 WS 22410619 (SDNY Oct. 22, 2003).
• Integrity (authenticity and identification of the e-record): identifying appropriate methods and procedures for ESI production, including the appropriate level and nature of legal supervision of forensic inspections, to ensure authentication under F.R.Evid. 901(b) by using circumstantial information such as the file access permissions, file ownership, dates when the file was created and when it was modified, other metadata and hash values for the record when copied to a forensic computer for analysis.
• Accessibility: under the rules of evidence: identifying and managing risks of loss of evidentiary privileges by the mere use of electronic e-discovery tools and procedures.
• Accountability for Non-Compliance: identifying the sanctions for culpable conduct, mainly, “spoliation” (intentional or negligent destruction of evidence) or negligent collection done by the record custodian rather than by an automated process, such as:

judicial issuance of an instruction to the jury that the jury may validly draw a “negative inference” (or “adverse inference”) from the fact that the offending party could not produce the normally available documents in support of its legal arguments, resulting in a conclusion that, if the “lost” or “destroyed” records had been introduced into evidence, they would have supported a negative conclusion as to disputed factual matters; and

judicial sanctions including an order to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the violation of discovery rules, where, for example, the adverse party incurred expenses to overcome the inability to access the “lost” or “destroyed” (spoliated) records.

Project Management in Forensic Record Examination. Within a holistic approach to ESIM, e-discovery tools and techniques can be identified along the continuum of “cradle-to-grave” (or more appropriately, “cradle to judge and jury”) progress.   As a sub-process of electronic records management, an e-discovery process model can be used to identify the particular role or function of third-party software, in-house resources and an outsourcer’s resources.  By looking holistically at the end-to-end chain of processes leading to satisfactory e-discovery compliance, under such a paradigm, the end-result, production and presentation of ESI, can be managed by effectively adopting either a total control at the “information management” level (when records are initially created and stored).   The following is our own view of electronic discovery records management (“EDRM”) as a subset of an enterprise-wide holistic ESIM resource management paradigm for governance, risk management and compliance in e-discovery:

Litigation-Readiness: Converting “Business as Usual” IT into Information Management Operations for E-discovery. Information technology plays a strategic role in the enterprise’s ability to comply with e-discovery mandates. The enterprise’s legal department should team up with the IT department, the records management department and the line-of-business management to participate in the design – or re-design – of the enterprise’s information management operations and records management. E-discovery compliance features are now available through software that can troll the enterprise’s entire ESI, search for information according to a myriad of legal and business terms, technical parameters. In conjunction with the CIO and the records management department, the legal department can:

• Gap Analysis: Conduct a “gap analysis” to identify which features are missing from those that are recommended or required under the applicable rules of civil procedure and common law, particularly those policies and procedures that involve data collection, classification, accessibility, storage, retention and destruction.
• Strategic Access Plan: Develop a strategic access plan for the full life-cycle of “business as usual” and custody and control, including audit, of the company’s information and litigation-relevant information.
• Process Design using an ESIM Paradigm: Apply the e-discovery records management sub-process of the enterprise’s holistic ESIM model to identify and segregate functions that will be performed by in-house or captive resources and those for outside legal counsel and outsourcing service providers.
• Cross-Border Considerations: Integrate multinational and cross-border legal mandates into the design of the information technology and information management systems, at an early stage in the e-discovery process, to avoid breaches of foreign data protection and privacy laws when complying with U.S. judicial rules of procedure.
• Integration of Internal and External Resources: Develop policies and procedures for use of outside litigation support services providers and an array of personnel and technology resources both domestically and internationally to fulfill e-discovery compliance mandates, without adversely impacting the ongoing business operations.

Litigation-readiness must be added to the selection criteria for new IT initiatives such as “cloud computing” (here, the “software as a service” model, not the “variable IT computing-power as a service” model), internal and external social networks, Twitter and internal and external collaboration platforms such as wikis, e-rooms and Google Wave.

Knowledge-Management Readiness: Managing and Protecting Corporate Knowledge. “Knowledge management” refers to policies, procedures and technology that enable an enterprise to capture, organize, identify, re-use and protect the confidentiality of its trade secrets. Knowledge management (“KM”) procedures must also enable the enterprise to distinguish among sources of confidential information that may be trade secrets, copyrights or patents of third parties (including “freeware” and “open source” software) as well. Accordingly, CIO’s must adopt KM planning strategies that, in conjunction with legal and compliance departments, also serve regulatory and legal requirements. The IT infrastructure needs to identify all such trade secrets during the e-discovery process so that, if disclosable, they are subject to non-disclosure and non-use under appropriate protective orders.

II. RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk of Spoliation by Employees and Contractors. According to one e-discovery service provider, a large majority of all corporate litigation is employment-related. If employees have access to change ESI, disgruntled or negligent employees pose a major risk of spoliation. Employees can unknowingly or intentionally destroy ESI evidence. Such actions can range from concealment (through downloading pirated software that deletes files on the employee’s web surfing history) to sabotage (actually deleting documents).

As a result, the legal department and the CIO need to develop IT-enabled solutions to prevent such acts. This article does not address this particular issue, but it highlights the need for appropriate design of the overall information management architecture as a preventive measure.

Risk Management. From the risk-management perspective, a proper defensive strategy will require an alliance between the company’s Legal Department, its Risk Management department and its IT department.

• IT Role. The IT department needs to work with the Legal Department to ensure a proper chain of custody and proofs of authenticity.
• Insurance. The Risk Management Department needs to help design and review the e-discovery process. Sanctions for spoliation have implications for coverages for directors and officers, employment practices, errors and omissions and general liability. The records manager needs to understand how the company’s Records Management (destruction) Policy meets e-discovery requirements.
• Legal Department. The in-house Legal Department must not only manage the e-discovery process. It must design and manage effective records management policies, educate all employees about the e-discovery process and its role in management of risks, knowledge and records.

III. BUSINESS MODELS: INSOURCING, CAPTIVES AND OUTSOURCING

Business Models for Insourcing. Before comparing outsourcing and insourcing, it is helpful to consider the different business models in which an internal e-discovery operation can be financed. These models can be summarized:

• Infrastructure Investment in a Complete e-discovery Toolkit. At the “high end,” the enterprise can make a capital investment in the essential tools of a fully “in-sourced” e-discovery operation. Such an investment will have significant payback for enterprises having a high volume of litigation with predictable volumes of e-discovery demands. Such enterprises will need to invest in all the people, process and technology necessary for the operation. If the operation is highly automated, it can be effectively managed onshore. If it requires substantial human review, part of the operation may be handled in offshore locations with remote access, security controls and other measures to prevent loss of confidentiality, competitive advantage and effectiveness. This leads to consider a captive e-discovery service delivery center. In this case, outsourcing can be a viable solution for that portion of the e-discovery process that requires supervised human review and analysis.
• Pay-Per-Use Pricing. Where litigation is more volatile in terms of volume and timing, a “pay-per-use” pricing for insourced use of third-party technologies can prove cost-effective. This pricing model provides some benefits to enterprises that have very few litigations, but a large volume of ESI for assembly, analysis, protection and disclosure.
• Consumption-Based Pricing. Consumption-based pricing reflects the volume of ESI being sorted and analyzed. This pricing model provides benefits for enterprises that want to allocate litigation costs to individual lines of business or affiliated companies, as a charge-back accounting principle that effectively rewards litigation-free business managers for staying away from the judicial system.

Relative Advantages of Insourcing.

• Industries Affected by Persistent Litigation. Several software tools exist that allow in-house counsel and the CIO to conduct the full forensic discovery using staff employees. Internalization of the discovery process makes economic sense where the company is constantly involved in litigation. Such companies typically include insurance companies, banks, consumer products manufacturers, and can include food service chains and franchisees. Other companies that are subject to class action claims for torts or securities law violations can fall into this category as well, impacting virtually any publicly traded company that has a volatile stock price.
• Control of Records Management; Cost Management. Software and IT services companies argue that insourcing can significantly reduce the costs of e-discovery. They argue that, by taking control of the forensic search, collection, analysis and processing of a company’s electronic records, companies have more flexibility and control over the manner in which these critical discovery processes are conducted. This control can translate into cost savings by enabling a closer supervision on-site by the internal lawyers.Cost savings must be compared to comparable external services.Cost savings that might arise from an easier ability to make small changes in the search criteria, for example, may result in a loss of the hard-wired “e-discovery plan” that serves as the basis of justifying to the court that the discovery disclosures comply with civil procedure to locate and disclose all relevant records.
• Protection of Trade Secrets and Intellectual Property. Insourcing, or using captives, can provide a significant level of additional protection for knowledge management, trade secrets and intellectual capital. Such protection comes at the cost of maintaining internally controlled resources. Outsourcers will claim that their security levels are higher than those in many global enterprises. Outsourcers offer personal non-disclosure covenants by individual employees. But there is always a risk, whether through insourcing or outsourcing, that the personnel having access to trade secrets, for example, might abuse their positions of trust through tipping a securities investor, selling the ideas to a competitor of the enterprise or other tortious conduct. Even a non-disclosure agreement does not constitute a valid non-competition covenant, and even non-competition covenants are unenforceable as a matter of public policy unless strictly limited in time, territory and scope, and (in California and some other jurisdictions) they may require additional payments of consideration. In short, neither insourcing nor outsourcing appears to have a clear advantage in this field, except that e-discovery managers who are employed by the enterprise might offer an advantage by having ongoing knowledge of what is (and is not) a trade secret for faster, better, “cheaper” claims to a protective order.
• Effectiveness of Coordination and Collection of ESI. The use of skilled internal people who know the company’s operations may be able to provide better collection and coordination of ESI. However, “professional” e-discovery service providers may have the advantage in skills at the beginning as the company’s internal personnel become familiar with the processes and technology of e-discovery. Hence, insourcing might follow outsourcing until the processes can be internalized.
• Reduction of Risks of Noncompliance with e-discovery Rules. Well-trained, well-supported internal personnel might be able to reduce risks of non-compliance in the typical e-discovery process.

Relative Advantages of Outsourcing e-discovery. Outsourcing of e-discovery processes may be costly, but it may be the best solution for several reasons. This requires an analysis of the relative merits. This “gating analysis” should include appropriate considerations of staffing, quality, ethical risks and speed.

• Staffing. One of the key benefits of outsourcing, and one of the key parameters in selecting the right outsourcing service provider, is the service provider’s staff. The best outsourcers have developed a methodology for human capital management in the specialized field of e-discovery and related disciplines. The outsourcer designs a service delivery platform, recruits, trains and tests its staff in generic functions (including project management, information technology and security) and then offers this staff for custom-training on the litigating company’s particular process and e-discovery requirements.Using a business company to provide litigation support can run afoul of ethics and disciplinary rules applicable to the litigating company’s (or its law firm’s) lawyers. Law society rule in England will be changed if and when a pending draft law is modified to permit competent non-lawyers to perform tasks that might be considered the practice of law. Under applicable ethics opinions of the American Bar Association and various city and state bar associations, the in-house lawyer or outside law firm cannot escape certain core ethical duties:

• to supervise the work of the outside service provider;
• to avoid assisting in the unauthorized practice of law (“UPL”)
• to ensure the protection of client confidences;
• to avoid waiving any rule permitting a claim of legal privilege (and to rectify innocent or mistaken disclosures, see e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 502);
• to avoid conflicts of interest;
• to protect against data loss, theft or other act or omission that might constitute sanctionable spoliation;
• to comply with the rules of court relating to e-discovery and management of ESI at all stages.

Vendor selection involves finding the right fit for the particular litigating company’s legal, regulatory, compliance, privacy, legal ethics and security requirements.

• Service Level Metrics and Quality Considerations. Few internal employees want to live by performance metrics. Outsourcers live by “guaranteeing” service metrics and other quality parameters.

Offshoring Issues. In considering an offshore captive or an offshore LPO outsourcing, the company’s lawyers must evaluate special cross-border legal issues.

• Export Controls. By transferring any U.S. data abroad, the company may require a license from one or more branches of the U.S. government. While commercial information may be subject to a general export license that does not require any notification, filing or administration, some information (such as software or design information that may have dual civilian and military uses) may require a specific license. Similar issues arise where the company’s ESI includes trade secrets, pending patent applications and other information that is subject to a required export license.
• Data Protection. Data protection rules under HIPAA and other legislation may apply to the data being processed. Foreign LPO service providers must ensure compliance.
• Privacy. Privacy rights arise from many legal sources and different jurisdictions. Depending on the source of any personally identifiable information (“PII”), any transfer of company records to a foreign LPO service provider may violate applicable rules. This issue suggests a proactive approach in the design and implementation of the company’s overall information management systems.
• Third-Party Consent. The information in a company’s database may include information that is licensed under restrictive disclosure conditions or where a third-party’s consent is required by an applicable law. Third-party consent may be required.
• Client Consent. The information in a company’s data base may also require the client’s consent
• Political Risk. Foreign service providers come with a suite of political risks that could impair service quality, timeliness of service, confidentiality and other custody and control issues for the ESI and the foreign nationals accessing such ESI.

IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Most effective e-discovery procedures will require effective integration of internal and external resources. The design, planning, implementation, performance, intermediate re-balancing and supervision of all resources remain, of course, in the hands of the company, and, in particular, in-house attorneys. The Legal Department (which is ultimately responsible) may wish to consult with “outsourcing lawyers” not merely with litigation counsel on achieving a flexible, cost-effective, efficient design, vendor selection and supervision, review of compliance with ethics rules and project management.

Evaluation Process. Companies evaluating an LPO solution for e-discovery (or any other LPO) should therefore carefully explore all relevant implications, design the program for compliance and quality of service, address special issues involving any cross-border data flows and other commercial, judicial rules, legal and ethical requirements.

Project Management Roles. Each LPO project requires thoughtful and careful attention to ensuring that all responsibilities of the different parties are aligned with their roles. Within the outsourcing model, there is room for designing and allocating roles and responsibilities to give in-house attorneys control of the process so that they can manage the ethical responsibilities. The introduction of the LPO service provider raises new questions whether the cost-controlling measures will impair (or improve) the quality of the outcome. External lawyers could also manage the service providers.

V. BUSINESS MODELS

• Business Models. Currently, most LPO e-discovery services are conducted under business models of insourcing (including contract attorneys), captives and outsourcing.
• New Models. Over time, companies and their legal counsel will become more familiar with the tools, alternatives and strategies for effective LPO, including identifying and assessing risks and evaluating a risk-benefit matrix.  With greater maturity in capabilities, new business models for identifying and managing e-discovery processes, tools and personnel may evolve.   The impact of cloud computing, platform-as-a-service, software-as-a-service, virtualization of both servers and client computing and mobile computing will challenge enterprises and their technology and legal service providers to integrate a holistic and global ESIM process to incorporate the EDRM subset as “business as usual.”

Outsourcing Law & Business Journal™:November 2009

December 21, 2009 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.

OUTSOURCING LAW & BUSINESS JOURNAL (™) : Strategies and rules for adding value and improving legal and regulation compliance through business process management techniques in strategic alliances, joint ventures, shared services and cost-effective, durable and flexible sourcing of services. www.outsourcing-law.com. Visit our blog at http://blog.outsourcing-law.com for commentary on current events. Insights by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. www.biercekenerson.com

Vol. 9, No. 11 (November, 2009) Last Opportunity to Register – Webinar on Sourcing of Global Talent

Managing Knowledge, Compliance and Legal Risks in Sourcing of Global Talent
Thursday November 17, 2009, 11 A.M. – 12 Noon, Eastern Daylight Time U.S.

Speakers:

• William B. Bierce, Esq., Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. – Outsourcing Lawyer
• Larry Scinto, PA Consulting, Managing Consultant
• Neil McEwen, PA Consulting, Managing Consultant

Agenda. This webinar will discuss the human capital management for the contingent workforce in our current economic climate. The speakers will address issues in designing a contingent workforce strategy, managing this contingent workforce, effective governance and the managing risks and legal issues that arise with the implementation of such a workforce. In this webinar, some of the questions that will be discussed are:

• How do I put together an effective contingent workforce strategy to optimize my investment in contingent labor?
• How do I ensure that my business customers are engaged in the case for change and buy-in to common technology, process, policy and governance?
• How do I govern multiple providers and ensure effective performance and value for my investment?
• What technologies should I be using to track provider/contingent worker utilization and performance?
• How do I ensure that legal/regulatory/compliance risks are recognized and managed in all geographies where I operate?
• How do I ensure that there is effective governance across the entirety of my contingent workforce?
• How do I manage risk and compliance issues that arise through the implementation of a contingent workforce?

This webinar is by invitation only. To register, please click here. _________________________________________________________________________
1.  “ObamaCare”: Promotion of Automation, Offshore Outsourcing and Job Losses; Penalizing Foreign Companies Based in Tax Havens (and Other Non-Treaty Countries).

2.  Humor.

3.  Conferences.
____________________________________________________________________________________

1. “ObamaCare”: Promotion of Automation, Offshore Outsourcing and Job Losses; Penalizing Foreign Companies Based in Tax Havens (and Other Non-Treaty Countries). If enacted, President Obama’s healthcare reform would probably hurt domestic employment and accelerate automation, outsourcing and offshoring. It would change the economic incentives for keeping service industries in America. And it would hurt foreign-owned businesses whose ultimate parent company is based in a tax haven or other country that has no U.S. income tax treaty.   On November 6, 2009, by a paper-thin margin of 220 votes to 215, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “ Affordable Health Care for America Act,”H.R. 3962, the 1,990-page health care reform law that has been frequently called “ObamaCare.” If substantially adopted by the Senate and passed into law, the bill would impose significant new burdens on employers and self-employed persons.  For the complete article, please click here.

2.  Humor.

Healthcare reform, n.  (1) a plan to make healthcare “affordable” in America by making employment less affordable.

Independent contractor, n.  (1) a staffing company, outsourcing service provider or personal service company working on projects under a defined scope, subject to change control procedures and never under the direction or control of the enterprise customer except by contract revision; (2) a free spirit, within the freedom of the statement of work.

3. Conferences.

December 6-8, 2009, IQPC and SSON’s 4th European Shared Services Exchange, The Hague, Netherlands. Following the success of our Shared Services Exchanges in North America we are now launching the new format for Europe, bringing together senior level conference topics in a highly productive and interactive meeting platform. The 4th European Shared Services Exchange is an invitation-only gathering for VP and C-Level senior Shared Services executives from successful European organizations. With a distinguished speaking faculty from Dell, Lafarge and Microsoft amongst others, the seats at the 2009 Exchange are limited and filling up quickly. We have limited complimentary invitations available for qualified delegates for a limited time. Please give us your reference when inquiring. There are solution provider opportunities also available for companies who want to be represented. You can request your invitation at exchange@iqpc.com or call us at 1866-296-4580. Visit the website for more information.

December 7-9, 2009, Legal IQ and IQPC’s 8th Annual E-Discovery Conference in New York, New York. Legal IQ and IQPC present the 8th eDiscovery event this December in New York City. Bringing industry leaders together to explore current risks, opportunities and challenges facing eDiscovery, this event will offer best practices and possible solutions to the ever remaining question: How can we lower our costs? This event goes beyond the traditional basics by examining the critical, high level, and strategic issues. Some of the topics to be addressed by the expert speaker faculty will be:

• Organizing an effective records program by tapping into existing resources
• Developing a litigation preparedness plan
• Determining judges’ priorities when eDiscovery conflicts arise
• Aligning the interests of IT, inhouse and outside counsel
• Handling eDiscovery via social media sites and other new sources of ESI
• Controlling the cost of review while maintaining defensibility
• Saving money by employing Early Case Assessment tools and new technologies

For more information and to register for this event, please click here.

January, 24-26, 2010, IQPC Business Process Outsourcing and Shared Services Exchange 2010, West Coast, USA. This is an invitation-only gathering for VP and C-Level senior Shared Services and Outsourcing executives made up of highly crafted, executive level conference sessions, interactive “Brain Weave” discussions, engaging networking opportunities and strategic one-on-one advisory meetings between solution providers and delegates. With a distinguished speaking faculty from McGraw-Hill, Ingram Micro and Pfizer, amongst others, the seats at the 2010 Exchange are limited and filling up quickly. We have limited complimentary invitations available for qualified delegates for a limited time. Please give us your reference ‘Outsourcing Law’ when inquiring. There are solution provider opportunities also available for companies who want to be represented. You can request your invitation at exchange@iqpc.com, call at 1866-296-4580 or visit their website.

February 22-24, 2010 ,SSON and IQPC 8th Procure-to-Pay Summit, Miami, Florida. Join Procurement, Accounts Payable and Sourcing professionals at the 8th Procure-to-Pay Summit to discuss new initiatives for procurement as IQPC and SSON continues with its Procure-to-Pay series in 2010. More information will be available shortly. In the interim, check out what happened at the 7th P2P Summit this past summer.

March 22-26, 2010, SSON presents the 14th Annual North American Shared Services & Outsourcing Week, Orlando, FL. Here’s a sneak peek of new and enhanced features, which include:

• Speakers from Top Companies:Aramark, Arbys/Wendy’s, AstraZeneca, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Conagra Foods, General Motors, Kellogg, Kraft, Microsoft, Monster, NASA, Northrop Grumman, Oakley, Perdue Farms, Schering Plough, Warner Brothers and more
• G8: Global Sourcing Think Tank Eliminating the White Noise: The first ever neutral platform to help shape a common industry agenda in the US
• Under the C-Suite Spotlight with Rene Carayol, An Exclusive Onstage CXO Interview: Board-room revelations regarding shared service & sourcing model strategy
• New, Strong, Business Outcome-Focused Content: 8 content-intense tracks, from Planning & Launching and BPO Evolution to IACCM’s Contracting to Collaboration
• Enhanced Annual Features: Quick Wins Energizers, Speed Networking, Blue Sky Innovation Room for Mature SSO’s, and more.

Please contact Kim Vigilia directly at 1-212-885-2753 or at kim.vigilia@iqpc.com with your special code IUS_OSL_#1 to get a 20% discount off the all-access pass. You can also visit the website at www.sharedservicesweek.com.

Outsourcing Law & Business Journal™: October 2009

October 29, 2009 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.

OUTSOURCING LAW & BUSINESS JOURNAL (™) : Strategies and rules for adding value and improving legal and regulation compliance through business process management techniques in strategic alliances, joint ventures, shared services and cost-effective, durable and flexible sourcing of services. www.outsourcing-law.com. Visit our blog at http://blog.outsourcing-law.com for commentary on current events. Insights by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. www.biercekenerson.com […]

Outsourcing Law & Business Journal™: September 2009

October 29, 2009 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.

OUTSOURCING LAW & BUSINESS JOURNAL (™) : Strategies and rules for adding value and improving legal and regulation compliance through business process management techniques in strategic alliances, joint ventures, shared services and cost-effective, durable and flexible sourcing of services. www.outsourcing-law.com. Visit our blog at http://blog.outsourcing-law.com for commentary on current events.

Insights by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. www.biercekenerson.com

Vol. 9, No. 8 (September, 2009)

Special Notice – Webinar on Sourcing of Global Talent

Managing Knowledge, Compliance and Legal Risks in Sourcing of Global Talent
Thursday November 5, 2009, 11 A.M. – 12 Noon, Eastern Daylight Time U.S.

Speakers:

• William B. Bierce, Esq., Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. – outsourcing lawyer
• Larry Scinto, PA Consulting, Managing Consultant
• Neil McEwen, PA Consulting, Managing Consultant

Agenda. This webinar will discuss the human capital management for the contingent workforce in our current economic climate. The speakers will address issues in designing a contingent workforce strategy, managing this contingent workforce, effective governance and the managing risks and legal issues that arise with the implementation of such a workforce. In this webinar, some of the questions that will be discussed are:

• How do I put together an effective contingent workforce strategy to optimize my investment in contingent labor?
• How do I ensure that my business customers are engaged in the case for change and buy-in to common technology, process, policy and governance?
• How do I govern multiple providers and ensure effective performance and value for my investment?
• What technologies should I be using to track provider/contingent worker utilization and performance?
• How do I ensure that legal/regulatory/compliance risks are recognized and managed in all geographies where I operate?
• How do I ensure that there is effective governance across the entirety of my contingent workforce?
• How do I manage risk and compliance issues that arise through the implementation of a contingent workforce?

This webinar is by invitation only. To register, please click here.
_________________________________________________________________________

1. Mortgage Loan Servicing and Other Outsourcing by TARP-Assisted Entities:  Criminalization of Contract Fraud under Government Contracts.

2. Humor.

3. Conferences.
____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Mortgage Loan Servicing and Other Outsourcing by TARP-Assisted Entities:  Criminalization of Contract Fraud under Government Contracts. Do you know whether you are a subcontractor receiving payments from an entity assisted under the U.S. Troubled Assets Relief Program or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of February 2009? You should be aware of the criminalization of contract fraud and the protection of whistleblowers denouncing contract fraud in your operations. Managing to prevent fraud just became more important. For more information and some “lessons learned,” click here.

2. Humor.

Feral, adj. (1) relating to the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009; (2) undomesticated.

3. Conferences.

October 6-7, 2009, American Conference Institute’s Software Licensing Agreements Event in San Francisco, California. Companies on both sides of the table in software license negotiations are being increasingly confronted with challenges relating to the use and licensing of proprietary products that contain or otherwise incorporate open source code. Coupled with the other core challenges presented by the negotiation of software licensing agreements – IP infringement, warranties, limitations on liability, indemnification, revenue recognition, product development and maintenance, and contract termination, it is imperative to a successful negotiation that one has a process in place to preemptively anticipate, address and quickly resolve these issues when they arise.

To provide you with specific insights into how to confront these and other contentious issues, ACI has assembled an exceptional faculty, including in-house representatives from the major players in this industry who will provide you with the tactical and strategic insights you need to negotiate more lucrative, airtight agreements – whether acting as the licensor or the licensee. For more information, visit the website .

December 6-8, 2009, IQPC and SSON’s 4th European Shared Services Exchange, The Hague, Netherlands. Following the success of our Shared Services Exchanges in North America we are now launching the new format for Europe, bringing together senior level conference topics in a highly productive and interactive meeting platform. The 4th European Shared Services Exchange is an invitation-only gathering for VP and C-Level senior Shared Services executives from successful European organizations. With a distinguished speaking faculty from Dell, Lafarge and Microsoft amongst others, the seats at the 2009 Exchange are limited and filling up quickly. We have limited complimentary invitations available for qualified delegates for a limited time. Please give us your reference when inquiring. There are solution provider opportunities also available for companies who want to be represented. You can request your invitation at exchange@iqpc.com or call us at 1866-296-4580. Visit the website for more information.

December 7-9, 2009, Legal IQ and IQPC’s 8th Annual E-Discovery Conference in New York, New York. Legal IQ and IQPC present the 8th eDiscovery event this December in New York City. Bringing industry leaders together to explore current risks, opportunities and challenges facing eDiscovery, this event will offer best practices and possible solutions to the ever remaining question: How can we lower our costs? This event goes beyond the traditional basics by examining the critical, high level, and strategic issues. Some of the topics to be addressed by the expert speaker faculty will be:

• Organizing an effective records program by tapping into existing resources
• Developing a litigation preparedness plan
• Determining judges’ priorities when eDiscovery conflicts arise
• Aligning the interests of IT, inhouse and outside counsel
• Handling eDiscovery via social media sites and other new sources of ESI
• Controlling the cost of review while maintaining defensibility
• Saving money by employing Early Case Assessment tools and new technologies

For more information and to register for this event, please click here.

January, 24-26, 2010, IQPC Business Process Outsourcing and Shared Services Exchange 2010, West Coast, USA. This is an invitation-only gathering for VP and C-Level senior Shared Services and Outsourcing executives made up of highly crafted, executive level conference sessions, interactive “Brain Weave” discussions, engaging networking opportunities and strategic one-on-one advisory meetings between solution providers and delegates. With a distinguished speaking faculty from McGraw-Hill, Ingram Micro and Pfizer, amongst others, the seats at the 2010 Exchange are limited and filling up quickly. We have limited complimentary invitations available for qualified delegates for a limited time. Please give us your reference ‘Outsourcing Law’ when inquiring. There are solution provider opportunities also available for companies who want to be represented. You can request your invitation at exchange@iqpc.com, call at 1866-296-4580 or visit their website.

******************************************

FEEDBACK: This newsletter addresses legal issues in sourcing of IT, HR, finance and accounting, procurement, logistics, manufacturing, customer relationship management including outsourcing, shared services, BOT and strategic acquisitions for sourcing. Send us your suggestions for article topics, or report a broken link at: wbierce@biercekenerson.com The information provided herein does not necessarily constitute the opinion of Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. or any author or its clients. This newsletter is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Reproductions must include our copyright notice. For reprint permission, please contact: wbierce@biercekenerson.com . Edited by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. Copyright (c) 2009, Outsourcing Law Global LLC. All rights reserved.  Editor in Chief: William Bierce of Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. located at 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2920, New York, NY 10170, 212-840-0080.

Outsourcing Law & Business Journal™: January 2009

January 1, 2009 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.

OUTSOURCING LAW & BUSINESS JOURNAL (™) : Strategies and rules for adding value and improving legal and regulation compliance through business process management techniques in strategic alliances, joint ventures, shared services and cost-effective, durable and flexible sourcing of services. www.outsourcing-law.com. Visit our blog at http://blog.outsourcing-law.com for commentary on current events.

Insights by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C., Editors.  www.biercekenerson.com

Vol. 9, No. 1 (January, 2009)
___________________________

1.  Identity Theft in 2009: Compliance by Business Owners and Government Agencies under Draft Federal Data Breach Notification Act.

2. Codes of Conduct in the Outsourcing Environment: Practical Scenarios after Wipro Debarment and Raju / Satyam Fraud.

3.  Humor.

4.  Conferences.
___________________________

1.  Identity Theft in 2009: Compliance by Business Owners and Government Agencies under Draft Federal Data Breach Notification Act. Personally identifiable information is the core to the global economy. All businesses, large and small, rely upon information technology, outsourced to external service providers, to process such information for a wide range of uses, including HR payroll and administration, purchase orders, accounting, finance, credit card payments, debt collection, tax compliance, records management, procurement, engineering, market analytics, business intelligence, e-discovery, legal services, and logistics.   All businesses must comply with data breach notification laws.  In the U.S.,these laws will likely be extended and federalized in 2009. For more information on pending federal legislation as of January 2009, click here for the full article, and, for a copy of the draft 2009 federal Data Breach Notification Act, click here.

2. Codes of Conduct in the Outsourcing Environment: Practical Scenarios after Wipro Debarment and Raju / Satyam Fraud. Implementing lessons learned from Enron and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, “codes of conduct” have become an integral ongoing concern in supply chain management applicable to employees, suppliers, contractors, consultants, captive affiliates, outsourcers and joint venture partners. When a trusted supplier breaches that code of trust, the enterprise customer needs to identify available remedies and make informed choices about enforcing legal rights and effectively mitigating the risks. This article makes recommendations for best practices in risk management, business continuity planning, disaster recovery, and legal rights and remedies in case of adverse events associated with a breach of a code of conduct or code of ethics due to senior management fraud or innocent “improprieties” that were fully disclosed but not permitted. It takes inspiration from the Raju /Satyam fraud in early 2009 and the debarment of Satyam Computer Servers Ltd., Wipro Technologies and Megasoft Consultants from the World Bank list of eligible contractors for corrupt practices. For the full article, click here.

3. Humor.

Change Control, (n). (1) a majority of voters on election day; (2) lobbyist’s draft legislation to block competitors from changing the rules of the marketplace; (3) Darwinian Evolution of Species, applied to business process transformation; (4) periodic brain dump.

4. Conferences

February 9-10, 2009, 9th Annual e-Services Philippines Conference and Exhibition and Next Wave Cities for Global Sourcing Council’s Multi-National Teleconference in Manila, Philippines and Hoboken, New Jersey.  The Global Sourcing Council will join with a session at the 9th Annual eServices Global Sourcing Conference and Exhibition taking place in Manila, The Philippines, to focus on “Next Wave Cities”. In the U.S., this event will take place at the Stevens Institute in Hoboken, New Jersey, beginning at 7PM; refreshments will be served, followed by an international video conference at 8PM. A keynote speaker and panel will be present in each location. The Stevens Institute site will focus on key factors that client companies seek in their sourcing locations. In a bid to be the next e-Services hub, invited cities present their development plans and competitive advantages. Vendors and buyers/influencers will exchange perspectives on current demand and supply requirements; presentations from new eligible locations in the Philippines, Asia and Europe will be given and this conference will provide business matching and lead development opportunities. To register, click here.  For more info on the 9^th Annual e-Services Philippines Conference and Exhibition, visit their website.

February 10-11, 2009, American Conference Institute (ACI) Reducing Legal Costs, New York, New York. Corporate legal departments are under the gun to reduce costs, and the pressure on them to do so will only mount as the economy struggles. American Conference Institute’s 2nd Annual Corporate Counsel Forum on Reducing Legal Costs has been tailored to provide in-house counsel with the knowledge they need to successfully employ cost-reducing procedures both internally and externally.  Don’t miss this unique cross-industry benchmarking forum on keeping legal department costs in check, led by a spectrum of leading companies. For more info, click here.

February 11-13, 2009 NASSCOM Leadership Forum 2009, Mumbai, India. The NASSCOM India Leadership Forum 2009, a milestone event that will mark NASSCOM’s 20th year, will bring under one roof industry leaders, thought gurus, analysts, Government decision makers, academia and IT users from across the world. For the very first time, the global conclave will journey through three key themes-one for each day-to completely transform the experience for delegates. For more info, click here.

February 16-18, 2009 IAOP 2009 Outsourcing World Summit, Carlsbad, California. In its 12th year educating the world’s outsourcing professionals, IAOP™’s 2009 Outsourcing World Summit is a one-of-a-kind opportunity. Come to learn the very latest in how to create competitive advantages for your company through outsourcing. For more info, visit their website.

February 23-24, 2009, American Conference Institute LPO Summit, New York, New York. ACI’s Legal Process Outsourcing Summit is designed for both in-house counsel and law firms who are still evaluating the viability of offshore outsourcing, plus those who already have outsourcing operations in place but who want to stay ahead of the latest industry developments to optimize their business practices. For more info, click here.

February 23-25, 2009, IQPC 6th Annual Procure-to-Pay Summit, Miami, Florida. SSON and IQPC’s Procure-to-Pay series returns with the 6th installment this February!  Following the tremendous success of the last events and traction from leaders in the space, the 2-track agenda promises to deliver tools to help bridge purchasing with payables and enable process excellence throughout each and every segment of the P2P cycle, including improving the bottom line, optimizing available resources and managing process change. For more info, click here.

February 26, 2009, Global Services Conference, New York, New York. This year’s theme is “Revisiting Global Sourcing in a Challenging Economy”.  The financial crisis and the economic meltdown have put pressure on organizations of all types. In a more globalized world, the dimensions of global engagement have increased and so has the impact.  In challenging economic conditions, global sourcing of services throws up new opportunities.  The 2009 Global Services Conference will have expert discussions around how customers of business and technology services can revisit their global sourcing strategies to tap into these opportunities. In a jam-packed day filled with thought-leaders, peer discussions, workshops and real-world case studies, the 2009 Global Services Conference breaks new ground in providing content to help executives determine how to establish business value in outsourcing engagements. Global Services will also present the findings of its annual Global Services 100 research study at an awards and cocktail reception. Click here for more info.

March 22-26, 2009, IQPC’s 13th Annual Shared Services Week, Orlando, Florida. SSON’s Shared Services Week™ is the community event for all levels of Shared Services professionals around the globe. With over 900+ past attendees from 22+ countries each year, it is the “Can’t Miss” event for everyone involved with shared services. In it’s 13th year, the event is bigger than ever! We have added additional tracks, more expert speakers, a larger exhibit hall and new content. Experience the most renowned Shared Services conference ever and take away key insights you will learn no where else. Network with experts in the industry and create contacts for life. Receive a 30% discount when you register by using code IUS_OSL_#3. Call 1-800-882-8684 or visit us online.

April 27-29, 2009, IQPC’s 7^th Annual e-Discovery Conference, San Francisco, California. Join this year’s conference to learn more about managing the process of electronic discovery files and to explore options that are available for this task. Proactive e-discovery solutions are more critical to legal departments yet the solutions for costs, implementation, and management are still widely unknown. This conference will provide strategies for e-discovery success including proactive strategies for record management; global privacy issues, data security laws, regulations; specific cost control options; judicial perspective; and cutting edge software solutions. For more info, click here.

May 5-6, 2009, 7th Annual HRO World ^TM Conference & Expo at NY HR Week ^™ , New York, New York. Hear from the HR outsourcing industry’s most respected practitioners, analysts and vendors. Register by April 10 with Source code HROL and save $100. Register here online or call 1-800-727-1227.

May 18-20, 2009, 6th Annual HR Shared Services & Outsourcing Summit, Denver, Colorado. The 6th Annual HR Shared Services Summit is the most important event of the year for HR leaders seeking to re-align their services with the strategic requirements of the business. This successful event brings together senior HR leaders in an exciting interactive forum, delivering best practice case studies aimed at optimizing every stage within the HR transformation process. Given historic economic conditions, it’s more important than ever that HR leaders exploit the dramatic economies of scale that are available to them through shared service structures. And for more mature companies – those that have already made the transition to an HR shared service model – there is an urgent need to re-align the kinds of services they offer with increasingly tough business challenges. Click here for more info.

******************************************

FEEDBACK: This newsletter addresses legal issues in sourcing of IT, HR, finance and accounting, procurement, logistics, manufacturing, customer relationship management including outsourcing, shared services, BOT and strategic acquisitions for sourcing. Send us your suggestions for article topics, or report a broken link at: webmaster@outsourcing-law.com The information provided herein does not necessarily constitute the opinion of Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. or any author or its clients. This newsletter is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Reproductions must include our copyright notice. For reprint permission, please contact: publisher@outsourcing-law.com . Edited by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. Copyright (c) 2009, Outsourcing Law Global LLC. All rights reserved.  Editor in Chief: William Bierce of Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. located at 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2920, New York, NY 10170, 212-840-0080.

• Publisher’s Blog

  Visit our publisher's blog, Bierce on Business, for commentary on current events.
  
  Registered Users
  We are currently not accepting new registrations, but existing users can still log in.