Security and Client Confidentiality the Number One Concern
It is increasingly self-evident that the interest level among legal departments and law firms large and small, in offshore legal outsourcing as a viable strategic alternative to the traditional delivery of legal services, has mushroomed beyond my wildest predictions. Only eight months ago I hosted our first MCLE Ethics webinar, entitled, Offshore Legal Outsourcing, the Ethical Implications. Forty-five attorneys, litigation support professionals, patent agents and other interested stakeholders signed up to attend. For Tuesday’s webinar I had a phenomenal one hundred and forty-nine registrants. What began as a whisper in the hallways of the most forward thinking and cost conscious corporate legal departments is now a chorus of approval sweeping law firms and corporations across the country. (My sincere apologies, it’s Friday afternoon and readers will have to indulge me here, but I just couldn’t resist a touch of Presidential nominee plagiarism!). Anyway, for those who couldn’t attend, the audio and slides are available here on my blog home page. If you scroll down the right hand side, you'll find them.
What I found particularly interesting were the results of my poll asking attendees the following question:
What ethical and legal issues concern you the most about offshore legal outsourcing?
Issues relating to Security and Client Confidentiality amassed an impressive 49% of the vote. The other major concern, registering 25%, was potentially failing in the duty to competently represent your client. I was encouraged albeit unsurprised, that despite the plethora of articles covering the recent Newman Hennessey and McIntosh vs Acumen case, only one individual highlighted the now infamous “4th Amendment” issue as their most pressing concern. Let’s all agree that this is now firmly put to bed. What was more surprising, given the number of attendees who professed to be either US IP attorneys, or patent agents, was the relative lack of concern with the Export Administration Regulations in light of the USPTO Notice of July 16. Only four attendees identified this as their number one concern. I don’t view this as evidence of a lackadaisical attitude among attendees towards compliance with the regulations. However, this clearly demonstrates U.S. attorneys’ and Patent agents’ awareness that the outsourcing of patent related support work overseas is set for legitimate growth. Practitioners understand that a careful classification of the technology to be exported with reference to the Commerce Control List, and if necessary, enlisting the assistance of the Bureau of Industry and Security, can ensure one doesn’t fall foul of the regulations.
Perhaps it was naivety on my part, but I actually removed a couple of slides from my webinar presentation dealing specifically with the security and data privacy standards routinely in place at the leading, reputable LPO organizations. I incorrectly assumed that as this is an issue that has been covered so repeatedly in previous conferences and seminars that attendees did not need to hear it all over again. Clearly I was wrong. I’ll be hosting a webinar dealing specifically with the issue of security and preservation of client confidential information before the end of the year and I’ll let readers of my blog know of the dates as soon as it’s in my calendar.
What I found particularly interesting were the results of my poll asking attendees the following question:
What ethical and legal issues concern you the most about offshore legal outsourcing?
Issues relating to Security and Client Confidentiality amassed an impressive 49% of the vote. The other major concern, registering 25%, was potentially failing in the duty to competently represent your client. I was encouraged albeit unsurprised, that despite the plethora of articles covering the recent Newman Hennessey and McIntosh vs Acumen case, only one individual highlighted the now infamous “4th Amendment” issue as their most pressing concern. Let’s all agree that this is now firmly put to bed. What was more surprising, given the number of attendees who professed to be either US IP attorneys, or patent agents, was the relative lack of concern with the Export Administration Regulations in light of the USPTO Notice of July 16. Only four attendees identified this as their number one concern. I don’t view this as evidence of a lackadaisical attitude among attendees towards compliance with the regulations. However, this clearly demonstrates U.S. attorneys’ and Patent agents’ awareness that the outsourcing of patent related support work overseas is set for legitimate growth. Practitioners understand that a careful classification of the technology to be exported with reference to the Commerce Control List, and if necessary, enlisting the assistance of the Bureau of Industry and Security, can ensure one doesn’t fall foul of the regulations.
Perhaps it was naivety on my part, but I actually removed a couple of slides from my webinar presentation dealing specifically with the security and data privacy standards routinely in place at the leading, reputable LPO organizations. I incorrectly assumed that as this is an issue that has been covered so repeatedly in previous conferences and seminars that attendees did not need to hear it all over again. Clearly I was wrong. I’ll be hosting a webinar dealing specifically with the issue of security and preservation of client confidential information before the end of the year and I’ll let readers of my blog know of the dates as soon as it’s in my calendar.
posted by Mark Ross at
11:38 AM
Subscribe RSS feed
1 Comments:
congrats!Its really a great effort on your part.The outcome of the polls in the webinar regarding the data & cofidentially issue is a but natural concern. and perhaps this is the fear that has led Mr. Hennessey to crusade against offshoring.But its disheartening to know about the limited growth of patent services offshoring.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home