PANGEA3 LLC

To our valued readers,

As the new decade approaches, we look forward to continuing to share news and developments in the legal services industry on our blog, and we wish you continued good health, happiness, and prosperity in the New Year!

2009 has been a year of momentous change for the legal industry, faced by the impacts and challenges of the global economic crisis, prompting closings, layoffs and other cost-cutting measures. Given this – and the pressure on corporations and law firms to manage legal spend – Pangea3 has successfully partnered with many Fortune 500 Corporations and Am Law 100 firms in the U.S., Europe, and Asian regions in 2009. Our clients benefited from our innovative, high-quality, tailored, outsourced legal services delivery model, and reported significant cost savings and improved operational efficiencies.

As we gear up for 2010, we are proud to acknowledge accomplishments in 2009 that solidify our position as the global leader in legal outsourcing. The expansion of our Board of Directors to include Brad Hildebrandt and Ambassador Wisner is clearly a positive development for Pangea3, and we are pleased with the numerous industry awards that validate our strong position, including the Top 50 Best Managed Global Outsourcing Providers and Top 5 Legal Outsourcing Providers for 2009 by the Black Book of Outsourcing, and LPO of the Year by the India Business Law Journal. [Read more about our 2009 Awards.] Also, in 2009, several of our success stories were featured in leading journals and newspapers including the National Law Journal, India Business Law Journal, Times Ascent and Economic Times.

And, not forgetting what is most important, we are happy to continue our tradition of giving to our community on behalf of all Pangeans and our clients by providing support to Project Crayons, an NGO in Mumbai, that supports child rehabilitation and youth oriented nationwide services. Stay tuned to learn more about our ongoing CSR commitments.

Once again, wishing you and your loved ones a Happy and Healthy 2010!

Pangea3 was recently awarded LPO of the Year by India Business Law Journal. We were also ranked as a Top Five LPO provider in every award category including, Best Overall LPOs, IP Services, Legal Support, Contract Services, Litigation Support, and Corporate Services.

As quoted in the November issue of the 2009 IBLJ LPO Awards report, “… Pangea3 is the only LPO provider to win an award in each of this year’s awards categories, often with a marked statistical lead over its rivals. In all five service areas considered by the judges, the company was among the most prominent and highly rated providers.”

The IBLJ results were largely based upon confidential feedback from senior in-house counsel at leading corporations and law firm partners along five key performance criteria: quality, consistency and reliability of service, innovation, ability to tailor services, and value for money. Several of Pangea3’s Fortune 500 clients recognized its high quality and cost-effective legal outsourcing services.

Read More…

The November issue of the India Business Law Journal published an article titled The New Legal Innovators by Sanjay Kamlani, Co-CEO, Pangea3 . The article provides significant insight into legal process outsourcing and discusses major industry trends that are likely to reshape the global legal services market. The original article has been republished as below with permission from IBLJ:

The New Legal Innovators

LPOs are poised to reshape the global market for legal services, argues Sanjay Kamlani, Co-CEO, Pangea3.

Legal process outsourcing (LPO) has come a long way since 2001 when General Electric (GE) made the concept a reality by utilizing in-house counsel in Delhi to handle procurement agreements for its affiliates around the world. In 2003, Lawrence Harnett, the senior counsel for the Americas at GE Plastics, announced that the credentials of Indian lawyers were “impeccable", stating that his clients were “really happy with the work". By 2004, GE reported annual savings of more than US$2 million from its outsourcing programme. At the same time, several other captive centres of excellence had generated an additional US$3 to US$5 million in revenue or cost savings for their corporate parents.

Currently, a group of about 10 top-tier LPO providers, dozens of smaller service providers and captive outsourcing units of many multinational corporations deliver a wide variety of legal services including contract drafting, legal research and related motion drafting, electronic discovery, regulatory compliance and patent prosecution and related analytics. Independent market research by the National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM), ValueNotes, and various LPO consultants indicate that there are now 5,000-10,000 lawyers working in India-based LPOs, generating annual revenues of US$250-US$500 million. Considering the recent growth of the sector, India’s LPO market can be expected to grow to at least US$1 billion by 2010.

Decision-making lawyers in the US and Europe, particularly the in-house counsel at multinational corporations, have come to appreciate the LPO providers that have successfully brought together impeccable legal credentials with process expertise, including Six Sigma tools and methodologies, lean cell manufacturing and other concepts that have made efficiency a key component of their value proposition. These in-house counsel have visited LPO facilities across India and have seen for themselves that process-expert lawyers are housed in state-of-the art secured facilities that are integrated with international markets through advanced technology.

Many have also found that LPO providers overcompensate for any apprehensions associated with geographic remoteness by offering outstanding customer service. Additionally, clients of LPO services have been pleased with the billing rates of LPOs, especially fixed-price models that eliminate budget risk and give them assurances regarding ultimate costs.
At the same time, clients are aware of the potential pitfalls of outsourcing. Key risks include the possibility of selecting an under-qualified LPO provider, overselling by industry players and the possible inability of the client to conduct a full in-depth due diligence of prospective providers.

The most significant risk facing the LPO industry is the failure of some LPO providers to meet client expectations. Unfortunately this has the potential to taint the entire sector. With a number of LPO providers overselling their capabilities, the likelihood is that delivery failure will occur. It may even occur at a highly visible level. In an effort to minimize this risk and prevent clients from having to engage in their own extensive due diligence of potential LPO providers, industry leaders have rightly focused on establishing a credible certification organization that will set appropriate standards and potentially offer guidance on segments of the industry that meet those standards. With such systems in place by 2010, in-house counsel and law firm partners will be in a better position to assess the competencies of industry players.

As we look towards 2010, the LPO sector is likely to influence standards within the larger legal services industry, including those of Indian law firms. In-house counsel are likely to demand greater efficiency from their legal service providers and push for a move towards fixed-pricing models and baseline standards for service provision.

Six Sigma and lean cell manufacturing tools and methodologies have become the norm for the LPO industry. These tools allow clients to track and verify the quality and consistency of any kind of recurring work product, be it documents being reviewed in the context of a litigation, or documents being drafted in the course of normal day-to-day business. Increasingly, law firms that have traditionally focused on billable hours are being asked to adopt these practices.

Just as performance, defined by volume and consistent quality, is increasingly measured using such tools, billing mechanisms are similarly being defined by the volume of pages, documents and gigabytes, or in terms of full-time dedicated teams, rather than by hours. Service providers and clients will increasingly focus on the relative risks and returns associated with these different pricing mechanisms. Providers who have been trying to hold onto billable hour pricing mechanisms will be pushed towards fixed pricing.

As we approach the end of the first 10 years since offshore centres of excellence for legal services were created and ultimately came to be known as LPO providers, it is clear that the trends that have emerged from this industry will impact - If not lead - innovation in the global legal services industry in the decade to come.

By Sanjay Kamlani, Co-CEO, Pangea3

© India Business law Journal, November, 2009

Pangea3 is pleased to welcome Ambassador Frank G. Wisner and Brad Hildebrandt to the Company’s Board of Directors.

Ambassador Wisner, a veteran U.S. diplomat and a former U.S. envoy to India, is highly recognized as one of the nation’s most respected diplomats, and brings a wealth of expertise in U.S.-Indian relations, international affairs and public policy.

Mr. Hildebrandt is a world-renowned authority on law firm management and an advisor to law firms and legal departments on firm strategy, mergers and acquisitions, governance, restructuring, practice management, partner compensation and international practice issues.

Pangea3’s new board members solidify our position not only as the leading provider in the legal outsourcing industry but as one of the first legal outsourcing providers to revolutionize and transform legal departments into critical business units with an innovative suite of streamlined outsourced legal solutions that minimize clients’ business risks and maximize efficiencies.

Meet the Board.

Read the Press Release.

I have often encountered initially hesitant clients who later remark upon the surprisingly smooth transition into legal outsourcing. When done properly, a smooth process should be expected. The following presents ABCs on how to take the plunge into legal outsourcing. If you do your homework, the water won’t be as cold as you perhaps expect.

A. Do Smart Due Diligence and Select an Able Legal Outsourcing Company

In Ethics Opinion 08-451, the ABA suggests a framework for diligence in selecting an outsourcing company. In consideration of this framework, I suggest the following:

1. Who are you really hiring to perform your work?
Understand the education and experience of the attorneys who are staffed on your project.

The Indian legal system is based on common law and legal training is, arguably, strikingly similar to that in the U.S., but such is not the case for all foreign jurisdictions where outsourcing is prevalent. Moreover, even within common law jurisdictions, it can not be assumed that an attorney will know how to properly perform on a particular project. Your understanding of the capabilities and limitations of a proposed project team will align expectations and will ensure that your work is entrusted to a company with the requisite expertise. You don’t want your project to be a vendor’s trial and error training tool, and qualifying the education and experience of the attorneys staffed on a project can avoid just that.

2. Will your project receive adequate U.S. attorney supervision?
Ensure onsite oversight.

Surprising as it may sound, not all offshore legal support companies have onsite U.S. attorneys. For obvious reasons, it’s important to clarify the chain of command on each project and, ultimately, to ensure that an onsite U.S. attorney with relevant practice experience is at the head of that command.

3. Are your confidences and data safe and secure?
Investigate security measures, confirm that there is a robust conflict check system in place, and check out the facility.

Confidentiality and data security are paramount whether work is done onshore or offshore. Don’t be hesitant to ask your legal outsourcing provider for details such as:

• How it ensures data safety and monitors physical security;
• Whether it has had breaches in security, what its policies are in the event of breach, and what type of background checks it performs on hires;
• How it avoids conflicts of interest, what type of conflict check database is used, and request a copy of their conflict check procedure;
• What international security certifications have they received, is that certification for the whole facility or only designated portions, and what are the requirements for maintaining certification.

Ask if you can visit the facilities. If you don’t have time for a visit, ask for pictures and ask to speak with clients who have visited. A great company will be proud of its operations, and will gladly show prospective clients around.

4. Check References

The best assurances are from your peers. Don’t be shy about calling references and asking them why they continue to use their provider and what they know now that they would have liked to have known before outsourcing. Many top companies and law firms outsource legal work on a regular basis; take advantage of their experience.

Take your time collecting information, asking follow up questions, and becoming comfortable with your contacts. I guarantee that careful selection of a provider will avoid most or all of the risk and hassle sometimes experienced on a first project. Good things come to those who are best prepared.

For more ideas about screening potential legal service providers, contact info@pangea3.com.

Pangea3 was recently highlighted in a Law.com and National Law Journal article, entitled “India Beckons to U.S. Lawyers” (Subscription Site), that discusses the growing trend of U.S. attorneys who are joining legal outsourcing companies. The articles’ author, Lynne Marek, interviewed several U.S. attorneys, including two Pangea3 attorneys, who have moved to India to work in the expanding legal outsourcing industry. In the midst of law firm and corporate layoffs, legal outsourcing offers a solution to entrepreneurial attorneys who seek managerial responsibilities and the experience of working abroad.

As Pangea3 grows, we seek talented U.S. attorneys who are interested in joining our company. For more information about our current job openings for U.S. attorneys, click here.

Legal outsourcing is here to stay but what does it mean for law schools and students? That is the focus of two blog articles by Professors Anne Enquist and Laurel Oates of the Seattle University School of Law. By discussing the current legal outsourcing industry, their blog posts raise a few interesting questions about how legal outsourcing will impact the careers of new law school graduates and how legal educators should prepare their students to practice law globally and use outsourcing effectively. Anne’s blog post has been republished in its entirety below:

Learning to live with Outsourcing
by Anne M. Enquist

I agree with Laurel Oates’ earlier post that outsourcing legal work is here to stay. Despite the belief by some that the financial downturn may have lessened the growth of LPOs, quite the opposite seems to be the case. For example, the largest sourcing firm in India, Pangea3, had one Mumbai office with about 100 attorneys when Laurel, Mimi Samuel, and I visited there in January 2007. Pangea3 now has three Mumbai offices and 240 attorneys.

I also agree that cost is a big reason why US and UK law firms and corporations are outsourcing legal work. When we interviewed the principals of Lexadigm, an outsourcing firm outside of Delhi, we asked them about their rates. They said that when they started in 2004 they were charging about $40 an hour. By 2007, they had raised their rates to $60-$100 an hour, depending on the complexity of the work and the turnaround time. But of course even those higher rates are a bargain when compared to what US domestic attorneys charge.

And some US attorneys are saying that they feel ethically obligated to do what is in the best interest of their clients, including saving them money by outsourcing some of their legal work. Time magazine quotes Mark Alexander, a Dallas attorney who makes exactly that point. Alexander said that he would not consider charging a client his $395 rate, or even a junior associate $225 rate, when he can outsource the work to Atlas Legal Research in Irving, Texas, which outsources the work to lawyers in India who do the work for $60 an hour.

But I also want to pick up on Laurel’s final question about what outsourcing might mean for our students, alums, and the practice of law. Our students will have to compete for work and jobs in this changing market. They cannot assume that when they graduate they will be able to make a six-figure income doing basic legal work for several years as they work their way up to partner. They will have to adjust their expectations, and they will have to figure out how to justify the salaries they hope to receive.
As legal educators, we have an obligation not only to inform them about the effect LPOs will have on their careers but also to prepare them for this dramatic shift in the practice of law. We have to get ahead of the curve on the whole issue of outsourcing and think through how to make it a win-win situation for all involved, including clients and lawyers here and in countries doing outsourcing work. This will require some creative, fearless thinking and problem-solving.

Initially, for example, one might start by saying “OK, what legal work can’t be outsourced? Let’s figure out what that is and give our students job security by teaching them to do that.” Or we could modify the question slightly, adopt a “best practices” approach and ask “What legal work can best be outsourced, and what legal work can best be done by someone local?” Or maybe the real question we need to ask is “How can we best prepare our students to practice law globally, including how to use outsourcing effectively?”

Republished with Permission from Anne M. Enquist, Associate Director Legal Writing and Professor of Lawyering Skills, Copyright June 13 2009, Seattle University Law Faculty Blog, Seattle University School of Law.

Lately, there has been no shortage of underemployed big firm lawyers. Watching one’s friends, colleagues and law school classmates lose jobs is not pleasant. Negative economic growth is not good for anyone.

Yet as law firms’ deal flow, litigation activity and patent filing volume have all fallen off, law firms are faced with a decidedly difficult question: Once the inevitable layoffs are complete, what does a firm do with underemployed attorneys when offshore legal providers can provide the same work for vastly lower costs?

Legal offshoring is here to stay. In August 2008, the ABA gave guidance on how domestic lawyers can ethically offshore legal work. Pangea3 and several other players have demonstrated that strong vendors are consistently producing offshore work that is fit for consumption domestically. Our long list of Fortune 500 clients will affirm this, and have affirmed it at conferences and in reference checks for years. Firms can no longer plausibly claim to be unaware of successfully outsourced legal work.

In spite of this, can a firm use its own resources even if they are overpriced relative to proven offshore resources? What does the firm tell clients who catch it in the act?

When he knows a less expensive qualified resource is available is it within the ambit of a lawyer’s judgment to use a resource that is twice as expensive? Four times? Ten times? At what point does it cross over into malpractice for the firm to put its own economic interests (keeping expensive associates busy) ahead of a client’s interests (containing costs and obtaining legal work at a fair price)?

Law firms have some rough sailing ahead before the return to fat times. We hope they are thinking about how to navigate these tough ethical questions.

Obama’s proposals to end deferral of US income tax on foreign subsidiary earnings of US companies, coupled with his employment restrictions on professional immigrants is likely to result in a substantial reduction in American GDP and American jobs resulting in further contraction of the US economy.

The traditional tax treatment of US companies and their foreign subsidiaries, long before talks on Obama’s proposals started, had already put American companies at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis their non-American peers. This disadvantage arises because many countries only tax companies on income earned in their home country and exempt them from tax on earnings of foreign subsidiaries. America, on the other hand, ultimately imposes additional US taxes on those foreign subsidiaries to the extent that the US tax rate is higher (e.g., after a credit is accorded for the foreign taxes). For example, in the case of a company enjoying a tax holiday in India, many European parent companies would pay no tax in their home country on the Indian subsidiary’s earnings, but in the US, a parent company would have to pay US taxes making the benefit of the Indian tax holiday worthless. Under current rules, the US tax system in most cases imposes that additional tax only when the earnings are brought back to the United States. President Obama’s proposed rules would impose that tax in the year the foreign subsidiary generates the earnings even before the earnings are sent back to the United States, putting those companies at an even more unfavorable competitive position. The European companies and the local companies with which they are competing have no such additional tax burden. The US simply can’t afford to make its corporate citizens even less competitive than they already are today.

Take for example, a US based IT services company with operations in India as compared to an India based IT services company with similar operations in India. The India based company pays little or no taxes in India because of Indian tax holidays. Under Obama’s new tax proposals, the US based company would have to pay taxes to the US government of 35% on the same type of income. This means that the US Company has 35% less after tax profits or must increase its prices for customers by 35% to be in the same position as the Indian company. Let’s say that both, the US company (US CO) with all of its operations in its Indian subsidiary and an Indian company (India Co) each earn $1 billion in revenue and incur aggregate expenses of $500 million resulting in a net profit of $500 million. In certain circumstances both the India Co and the Indian subsidiary of US Co would pay no taxes in India under typical STPI/EOU programs. But US Co would end up paying 35% ($175 million) in taxes to the US Government as opposed to zero for India Co. The only way for US Co to get to the same after tax profit as India Co would be to charge 35% higher prices or earn 35% more revenue through more business.

To make matters worse, the new immigration restrictions are tied mostly to government bailout funds and restrict banks and recipients of TARP and other bailout funds from employing professionals in the United States on H-1B visas. This makes it difficult for leading financial institutions and other firms to hire highly qualified experts and professionals. The new proposals to restrict H1-B and L1-B employment beyond government bail-out recipients could ultimately result in an exodus of talent from the country, along with the revenue generation that would have been attributable to them and the spending they would have incurred.

This clearly makes it a double hit to America.

Obama’s immigration restrictions actually force Indian entrepreneurs and professionals out of the US to India where they establish more off-shoring business and the tax policies make the US based companies less competitive with the Indian based companies such that more and more US dollars flow to the Indian companies. While this appears to lack wisdom from the standpoint of the US economy and corporate, one must also appreciate that Obama is thinking of the average American individual who is angry about American companies making money by getting work done in India rather than in the United States.

The irony however, is that these protectionist policies are likely to harm American individuals much more than others since it makes the way for less jobs for Americans. The flip side is that they also signal good news for the Indian IT/BPO industry. The policies force more business and revenue to Indian based companies operating in India by making US companies less competitive and by precluding what might have been on-shore activity.

The reality is that the best way to protect American jobs is to eliminate the trade barriers and the immigration barriers—facilitating commerce by enabling foreigners to come into the US and for US companies to operate outside the US. Immigration and tax policies that make it difficult or preclude foreigners from doing business in the US and for US companies operating outside the US respectively simply push dollars and jobs outside the US. It may be good politics but it is bad for the economy.

It is very unfortunate for Americans that President Obama is out fooling the American public into believing that opportunity lies in the heartland of America protected by artificial barriers at the border known as Visas and tax disincentives. At some point the American public will realize that opportunity lies not in the heartland but across the internet sea in Bangalore where people are truly free to do work anywhere in the world they please.

As Pangea3 has grown, our clients have from time-to-time inquired about the legal and education systems in India. The inquiries have predominantly focused on the duration and quality of the Indian legal education. This article offers to address some of those queries as well as to inform the reader, at a very high level, about the Indian Legal System.

Indian Legal System

At the outset, the legal system in India is based on British Common Law. The primary sources of law in India are (I) the Constitution, (ii) legislative enactments (statutes), (iii) case law, and (iv) customary law. At the apex of the judiciary system is the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”). The Supreme Court exercises original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. All other courts in the country, including state high courts (“High Courts”) and other lower courts are subordinate to the Supreme Court and are bound to follow decisions of the Supreme Court.

Each High Court is the highest court of appeal as far as that state is concerned. Sitting below the High Courts are several subordinate courts in a state e.g. family courts, tribunals, consumer courts etc. The proceedings of the Supreme Court and most of the High Courts are conducted entirely in English.

Indian Education System generally

Education in India can generally be divided into the following stages (where Indian “Classes” are equivalent to U.S. “Grades”):

• Primary or Elementary: Classes 1 to 8 (ages 6 to 14)
• Secondary: Classes 9 & 10 (ages 14-16)
• Higher Secondary: Classes 11 & 12 (ages 16-18)
• Higher Education (Graduation in Arts/Commerce/Science): Classes 13-14-15 (ages 18-21)
• Post Graduation: Usually 2 to 3 years in duration

Centralized state level exams administered by the responsible state body (universities) are held at the end of Classes 10, 12 and 15.

Legal Education:

In order to obtain the LLB degree in law, a prospective student can consider one of the following two options after completing Class 10 (equivalent of the Sophomore Year, or 10th Grade in a U.S. High School):

Option I

i. Attend “junior college” for 2 years. This is often referred to as the 10+2 system in
India, and is the equivalent (in number of years) that it takes to finish High School in the
U.S.
ii. Receive an Undergraduate Degree (e.g., BA, BSC, BCom, etc.).
iii. Attend Law School for an additional 3 years.

Option II

i. Attend “junior college” for 2 years (same as Option I above).
ii. Complete a 5 year integrated law degree program offered by a few Universities (much like certain institutions in the U.S. that offer a consolidated 6-7 yrs. M.D. program straight out of High School)

Regardless of which of the above options a law student selects, upon clearing exams administered on a centralized state level basis by the relevant state body, the student receives an LLB degree (equivalent to a JD). Upon registration at a local bar, such student is eligible to practice law. In case of a 5 year integrated law degree program (Option II above), the student also receives a BLS degree (Bachelor of Legal Sciences) on completion of the first 3 years.

Admission to Law Schools:

Applicants to law colleges in India are not required to take a centralized entrance exam like the LSAT. However, many colleges privately administer entrance exams to all applicants. Admission to law colleges in India is based on how well the prospective student did in junior college and/or Undergraduate, as the case may be, in addition to the privately administered entrance exam, where applicable.

Curriculum in Law School:

The Bar Council of India prescribes the courses to be administered by law schools. Over the course of the program, 21 compulsory subjects are offered including Legal Writing, Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, Corporations, Contracts, Evidence, Civil Procedure, and Criminal Procedure. Optional subjects include taxation, bankruptcy law, and Intellectual property law.

All students are required to take a course on professional ethics.

While the foregoing offers to address certain inquiries and curiosities directed towards the Indian legal system, we would invite questions either unaddressed in this blog, or other more specific inquiries in connection with the Indian legal system.

Pangea3 is the recognized industry leader in legal outsourcing services – with a heart.

As part of Pangea3’s Corporate Social Responsibility program, our team recently volunteered for Janvi Charitable Trust (JCT), an NGO that conducts primary education programs, vocational training and income generation programs, medical camps, health awareness camps and disaster and waste management programs for underprivileged families in Mumbai. The trust operates a Balwadi (primary education/day care center) in Ambedkar Nagar, Saki Vihar Road, near Pangea3’s Mumbai offices.

To kick off our voluntary initiative with the JCT Balwadi, we organized a Christmas party for under-privileged children. Children, 3 to 7 years old, from the Trust operated day care center were invited to our Mumbai offices to celebrate Christmas with us.

Planning for this event however started weeks in advance. Members of different teams came together to brainstorm ways to give these children a special holiday celebration.
Arrangements were made enthusiastically for refreshments, games and music. We wanted December 26, 2008 to be special for the children and our employees alike.

By December 26th, the entire office was filled with excitement and holiday cheer. Children were welcomed into the colorfully decorated office by our team volunteers. The children and volunteers spent the evening playing games, singing and dancing to popular Bollywood music. It was a delightful scene to watch the children celebrate the holidays. The evening ended with the volunteers distributing a special Christmas gift for each child.

The happiness we saw in the eyes of every child who came to our office that day will stay with us for a long time. The sense of fulfillment we all experienced has encouraged us to find more ways we can assist the children of this Balwadi. Our cameras did capture the moments of joy…..

As ‘Pangeans’, we firmly believe we can do a great job volunteering for a variety of things in society by extending a helping hand.

February 1, 2009 – Pangea3 celebrates its fourth anniversary as it ended a banner year and it further established itself as the industry leader in legal outsourcing.

In 2008, we received the prestigious International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 270001:2005 Information Security Management certification for our physical and data security practices and processes. We were also recognized by Valuenotes Research as an industry leader in patent outsourcing.

As 2009 progresses our goal is to continue to lead the legal outsourcing industry by continuing to provide our clients with world-class quality services at compelling savings. In addition to enhancing customer values, as a corporate citizen, we will endeavor to fulfill the needs of the global community through various corporate social responsibility initiatives, practices and programs.

In the December, 2008 issue of the ABA Journal, the “flagship magazine of the American Bar Association,” there is a feature article about the anonymous life of a contract document review attorney in New York City:

Down in the Data Mines
A tale of woe from the basement of legal practice.

The anonymous author describes the bleak work environment and perverse incentives of lawyers living the document review life in New York and, presumably, elsewhere.

Aside from the unpleasant work environment and seeming lack of respect accorded to these attorneys, in-house counsel should be keenly interested in the perverse incentives under which such lawyers work.

The anonymous author describes how he makes “$35 an hour for the first 40 hours and $52.50 for each hour thereafter.” The economic incentive, then, is to work more than 40 hours per week, despite the fact that the 41st hour (or 51st or 61st) is no more effective than the 40th hour. It is difficult to maintain consistent high quality when attorneys are reaching for more than 40 hours week after week just to make more money.

Beyond this striving for overtime, however, is an even worse incentive. As the author says:

“The reality is even worse: If I review 100 documents per hour (a very fast pace), I get paid the same hourly rate as if I review 30. More-over, each project consists of a finite number of documents; so the faster I work, the sooner I am out of a job and need to start hustling for the next project.

‘Don’t work us out of a job,’ a veteran contract attorney once derided me in private after I reviewed too many documents on the first day of a new project. And the firm is usually OK with this attitude; in my experience, speed and accuracy have always taken backstage to billable hours.”

There is a better way.

Pangea3 has moved to a unit pricing model for document review. We charge by the document, the page and the gigabyte. Aside from absolute lower costs for off-shore review what are the benefits?

1. Incentives Are Aligned: We work for speed and accuracy, not project longevity. Because we don’t charge overtime, it makes no economic sense for us to artificially extend projects. Because we don’t pay our people overtime, it makes no economic sense for them to work inefficiently or past the point where they are working effectively.

2. Fixed Costs: By charging by the document, page or gigabyte, our clients can easily know the cost of a review before the review commences.

If you haven’t tried off-shore review, give us a call and we’ll show you how going off-shore, where our incentives are aligned with yours, can lower costs and increase quality.

The January 5th edition of The Economic Times featured Pangea3 as the industry-leading legal outsourcing company in the page titled ‘The Road Ahead’ .

Our Co-CEO, Sanjay Kamlani, discusses recent trends in legal outsourcing along with industry expectations for 2009. With Pangea3 representing the legal outsourcing industry, the other leading players include Mahindra&Mahindra from the automotive sector, Cognizant from the IT, Kotak Mahindra Bank and Religare Enterprises from Banking and Finance.

The Road Ahead was compiled by Priya Nair, Sheetal Nair and Yasmin Taj from the Economic Times. Click here for the entire story.

Pangea3 is proud to sponsor the International Association for Contract & Commercial Management (IACCM) Americas 2009 conference. With the current economic crisis, companies are feeling increased pressure to manage risk. The Americas 2009 will provide attendees with the tools, techniques and organizational models that are critical to responsible risk management. The event will bring together legal experts, senior management, practitioners, providers and academics - to discuss needs, trends, best practices and models in the legal and contract management industries.

The event will be held at the Omni Orlando Resort April 7th-9th.

Argyle Executive Forum is hosting the 2009 Corporate Counsel Leadership Forum on May 13 at the Marine’s Memorial Club in San Francisco from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. The event will bring together legal and executive leaders from a large number of public and private large cap and mid cap corporations, along with select members from the advisory community. With the present economic climate affecting the corporate counsel’s office with new set of challenges, this forum will provide practical strategies related to risk management, preventing and responding to corporate misconduct, managing and protecting enterprise information, corporate internal investigations, and more.

Pangea3 is proud to be among the sponsors.

We are proud to announce that one of Pangea3’s attorneys, Naina Hegde, has passed the New York Bar. Naina is a member of an elite number of Indian attorneys from LPO providers who have passed a U.S. bar exam. We are proud of Naina’s accomplishments and wish her well on her career as a U.S. attorney.

Read Naina’s journey through her pursuit of an LL.M. degree to taking the NY Bar exam.

David Perla, Co-CEO

Passing the Bar Exam
Naina Hegde, Senior Contracts Manager

Once I moved to New Jersey, the fact that I am a lawyer in India meant almost nothing. If I wanted to continue practicing law, the only solution was to pass a U.S. Bar exam. Unlike California, the state of New York requires foreign attorneys to complete a prescribed course of study in an accredited law school to be eligible to take the state’s bar exam. So there I was in Cardozo Law School, pursuing an LL.M. degree.

LL.M. students at Cardozo were not separated from the J.D. students. We all took the same classes and exams. Most professors made it clear on the first day that class participation is required and no exceptions would be made. We were all like deer - either choose to get caught in the headlights or steer clear (by being prepared for every class, which meant reading hundreds of pages every week). The class atmosphere was always charged and thought-stimulating, with arguments (sometimes sensical, sometimes not) frequently flying back and forth. We all wanted to make the smartest comment, as some professors graded on participation. There was a lot to learn by being in a class comprised of foreign trained attorneys and future American attorneys. The differences in attitude, thinking and presentation were stark. What really struck me was the willingness of students to openly disagree and argue with the professor and the professor taking all of it surprisingly well.

My LL.M. studies were a cake walk compared to the pressure I felt during my bar exam preparation - 2 months of waking up early in the morning, sitting in front of a screen for four hours, listening to a professor’s monologue, then studying at least four additional hours at home. Bar/Bri, the bar review course, recommended nine hours of study every day, excluding class time. There were days when I wanted to quit, throw my books out the window, and then days when I was confident I was studying enough to pass. However, more agonizing than preparing for and taking the exam was waiting for the results. On the day results were announced, 11,176 applicants started logging into a website at 9am and the system crashed! My fate was published, only I couldn’t access it! It was only after hours of anxious attempts that I discovered I had passed. Phew! This was the most exhilarating and relieving moment. All the hard work paid off and, most importantly, I did not have to spend hours cramming again. Finally, I can say I am an attorney in New York.