Author: TSA Press

Welcome to our latest article in the monthly “An Interview With” series. In this series, I  connect with people from all parts of the legal profession and at all stages of their legal career to learn who really makes up the legal community and what they are actually doing with their legal degrees. 

This month, I chatted with an immigration attorney and the owner of Lacroix Law, Miriam Lacroix. Miriam is a 2014 graduate of the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. Today, Miriam runs her own solo practice, where she provides legal services and peace of mind to immigrants navigating their path to legal status.

In this article, we’ll learn about Miriam’s journey to becoming a solo practitioner, some of the challenges she faces running a small business, and what it is really like to be an immigration attorney in 2019. 

KS: Tell us about your journey to becoming a solo practitioner and small business owner. 

ML: Having my own practice became a dream of mine in law school. As a student, I participated in an immigration clinic, where I represented clients in their immigration cases as a student attorney. After law school, with my future private practice in mind, I became a part of the inaugural class of the  Immigrant Justice Corps, where I served as a Fellow at the City Bar Justice Center. After training and experience, I felt prepared to finally realize my dream of owning my own law firm. 

KS: What do you love about running your own practice and being your own boss? Conversely, what are some challenges that come with being a small business owner? 

ML: Although I love being a lawyer and representing clients, I have to say that my favorite part of what I do is the business aspect. I love making new relationships with other professionals, engaging with people via social media, conducting presentations, and being creative with how I offer more value to my clients. I’m obsessed with the idea of a law firm that is organized and streamlined and can run without me. That’s the goal I am working towards. 

Being a small business owner comes with the challenge of being the boss and being responsible for every decision. Although I like to think that I know everything, that is absolutely not the case. One of the hardest parts for me is the fear of making the wrong decisions. I’m grateful for my colleagues, who I rely on for support and advice. 

KS: I know this question is a bit of a trap for business owner, but describe what your typical workday looks like.

ML: It is definitely a trap because no two days are the same. Typically, I split my day up in blocks. I have blocks to do legal work, to return and make phone calls, and to work on marketing, sales, finances, and even admin work. Sometimes, though, I have a day where one of these blocks takes up the whole day! I don’t go to court as much anymore, but some days I have appearances in Immigration Court for hearings or USCIS for interviews. 

KS: What drives your passion to practice immigration law? 

ML: This is a really good question. Given the current climate, it is so easy to get discouraged. However, my clients, their resilience, their stories, and the fact that I’m often giving someone a chance that they couldn’t have accomplished on their own drives me. My clients are always so grateful, no matter the result, because they appreciate the effort. I am passionate about the freedom of movement and uniting/reuniting families. This administration’s heartless treatment of children and families definitely drives me to want to combat it every chance I get. 

KS: Immigration is a topic that gets a lot of news coverage these days. Can you tell us a little bit about the realities of practicing immigration law under the current administration?

ML: Under the current administration, immigration practice has become very difficult. Things change so often that immigration lawyers are unsure how to advise our clients. I find myself saying “maybe” or “it depends” a lot more now than ever. In addition, ICE enforcement has become increasingly more intense, causing fear in immigrant communities. This administration prioritizes all unauthorized immigrants, which is a stark difference from the Obama administration, which prioritized national security threats, such as people with a serious criminal history, and recent border crossers. Back then, a lot of clients had less to worry about because they didn’t fall into one of those categories. Now, I am in the position of wondering whether my clients, who have been in the U.S. for 20-30 years with no criminal history, will be picked up by ICE if, for example, their application for an immigration benefit is denied for some reason. 

You’ve got to have some thick skin, perseverance, and patience when practicing immigration under this administration. 

KS: What advice do you have someone who is interested in starting their own legal practice right out of law school or very early in their career? 

ML: I would say to definitely get a support system outside of your family. Contact friends, colleagues, and possible mentors who you can bounce ideas off of and ask legal questions. When you start a practice right out of law school, you have the double duty of learning how to run a business, while also learning how to practice law/be a lawyer. Those are both very difficult and time-consuming things. In addition, keep in mind that you will make mistakes, you will have ups and downs, and you WILL have some bad months. Take it from me. That is all part of the territory. Don’t get discouraged. I know this sounds cliche, but keep your eyes on the prize. Keep in the back of your mind why you’re doing this because you will need that motivation on a rainy day. And one last piece of advice is to value yourself. Oftentimes when we are new lawyers, we tend to think that we can’t charge too much. Who are we to charge as much as the woman/man down the street who’s been doing this for so long and has years of experience? That is the wrong way to think! Your knowledge, education, experience, and work is what qualifies you to be paid adequately for your work. Do not sell yourself short. You are providing a service that your clients need and their lives are better for it. It took me a while to learn that, but once I did, I saw a huge difference.

You can learn more about Miriam here.

Know someone who would be great to profile in this series? Send an email to info@vincoprep.com with “An Interview With” in the subject line.

---

Kerriann Stout is a millennial law school professor and founder of Vinco (a bar exam coaching company) who is generationally trapped between her students and colleagues. Kerriann has helped hundreds of students survive law school and the bar exam with less stress and more confidence. She lives, works, and writes in the northeast. You can reach her by email at info@vincoprep.com.

Online retailer Amazon has taken a step into the legal services industry, launching a curated network of IP law firms providing trademark registration services at pre-negotiated rates.

The goal of the new Amazon Intellectual Property Accelerator is to help companies more quickly obtain IP rights for their brands and access to brand-protection features in Amazon’s stores. It specifically targets small- and medium-sized businesses by making it easier and more cost effective for them to protect their ideas.

“Expert legal guidance is critical for businesses to protect their brands and avoid costly mistakes in the trademark filing process,” wrote Dharmesh Mehta, Amazon’s VP of customer trust and partner support, in a blog post announcing the program. “IP Accelerator solves this challenge by connecting businesses with a curated network of trusted IP law firms that provide high quality trademark registration services at competitive rates to help brands secure a trademark.”

Amazon so far has approved 10 law firms to participate in the program, including FisherBroyles; IdeaLegal; The Sladkus Law Group; McCormick, Paulding & Huber; and Dunner Law.

While these 10 firms are all U.S.-based and focused on U.S. trademark applications, Amazon says it plans to expand IP Accelerator in the future to support trademark applications in other countries. A company need not be a seller on Amazon to work with an IP Accelerator law firm.

These firms have agreed to maximum fees for specified services, including $500 for a trademark search, $600 for a trademark application, and $1,800 for a comprehensive brand review. The company pays nothing to Amazon and contracts directly with the law firm.

Amazon says it has vetted each of these firms for experience, expertise, and customer service. As with other offerings on Amazon, firms’ listings will include customer reviews.

In addition to easier, fixed-fee access to legal services, the accelerator offers companies a secondary benefit. Amazon says that because it has thoroughly vetted these law firms, companies that use them will be “strong candidates for registration.”

For that reason, Amazon says, it will offer the companies access to brand-protection features within its platform, months or even years before a trademark registration officially issues.

“Brands will benefit from automated brand protections, which proactively block bad listings from Amazon’s stores, increased authority over product data in our store, and access to our Report a Violation tool, a powerful tool to search for and report bad listings that have made it past our automated protections,” Mehta’s blog post explains.

Amazon’s Entrée into Legal Services?

Amazon has a strong self-interest in fighting counterfeits and protecting the brands of the businesses that sell on its platform. For that reason, providing easier access to IP law firms makes sense for Amazon, as well as for its sellers and ultimately its customers.

But could this be a first step for Amazon in providing broader access to legal services?

The listings for these new IP Accelerator law firms appear within Amazon’s Service Provider Network, a site that already provides Amazon sellers with access to “trusted local providers” of services in fields such as accounting, advertising, compliance,  shipping, tax registration, and more.

If it benefits its sellers to help them with IP services, might Amazon follow with providing access to legal services providers in other areas that would benefit them, such as corporate or employment law?

And if Amazon is successful at building legal networks to serve its sellers, might it take that a step further and build networks of law firms to offer their services to its customers at large?

It is not hard to imagine a time when Amazon offers curated networks of lawyers providing services at pre-negotiated rates in areas such as family law, immigration law, and estate planning.

This is pure conjecture, of course. But when you start to think of Amazon as the next LegalZoom, the biggest question may be, “Why not?”

---

Robert Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer and journalist who has been covering legal technology and the web for more than 20 years, primarily through his blog LawSites.com. Former editor-in-chief of several legal newspapers, he is a fellow of the College of Law Practice Management and an inaugural Fastcase 50 honoree. He can be reached by email at ambrogi@gmail.com, and you can follow him on Twitter (@BobAmbrogi).

7.10.2019
20:14

by paul bogaert

The country will set up an alternative stock market for small enterprise companies: Mnangagwa

PENTAGON: The Pentagon’s top lawyer has ordered the collection of all documents related to the Ukraine military aid at the center of the House impeachment investigation.

In a letter sent across the Pentagon, General Counsel Paul Nay directed officials to “preserve all documents, records, and writings, and any associated attachments, in any format,” that relate to the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and direct any requests from outside the department Office of Information Counsel. The letter was made public today. 

DoD spokesman Jonathan Hoffman told reporters Thursday that gathering the relevant materials is meant “to ensure that all appropriate department information is available on this matter,” adding that “DoD offices should provide any pertinent documents and records to the Office of General Counsel for cataloguing and review.”

House Democrats launched an impeachment investigation after a White House whistleblower flagged a July 25 conversation between Trump and new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump asked for a “favor,” suggesting an investigation by Ukraine of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Biden is the Democratic front-runner to challenge Trump in next year’s presidential election. The administration had ordered a last-minute review of Ukrainian military aid, holding up its release for several months. Following the call and whistleblower complaint, the House Intelligence Committee’s chairman, Adam Schiff, asked for a copy of the Intelligence Community’s whistleblower’s complaint on Sept. 10. Congress was notified that the Ukrainian aid was released by the administration the next day.

Hoffman was unable to provide details on when Pentagon leaders were first made aware that the $250 million aid package had been frozen, or why. Some Republican lawmakers like Lindsey Graham have suggested the hold came at the behest of the Pentagon, which allegedly considered Zelensky an unknown quantity. However, DoD had certified in May that Ukraine had made enough progress on addressing corruption to allow the assistance to flow without worry.

The July 25 call came several days after Defense Secretary Mark Esper was confirmed for the job. Hoffman said Esper was not on the call, in which Trump asked Zelensky for “a favor” after Zelensky bought up the delivery of Javelin anti-tank missiles.

Hoffman downplayed the significance of the document scrub, calling it “a fairly standard practice that when there’s a significant level of congressional or [inspector general] interest in a matter.”

The type of paper and electronic files that will be swept up in the General Counsel’s effort include records and conversations held inside the building and with other agencies centered on the aid delay.

Asked why Esper was not on the Ukraine call, Hoffman brushed off the need for Esper’s involvement. “The secretary has an incredibly busy schedule, he doesn’t spend most of his days sitting in on other people’s phone calls,” he said.

Asked about the Ukraine situation late last month, the SecDef responded, “I’m not going to get into any of that right now. I’m trying to keep DoD out of politics.” Esper pledged at his first news conference to keep the Defense Department apolitical.

European Command chief Gen. Tod Wolters, speaking to reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday, said he has had “zero conversations” with foreign counterparts about military funding for Ukraine. “I haven’t had any conversations with my mil-to-mil counterparts or with anybody, about concerns over investments in the Ukraine,” he said.

One of the key pieces of equipment the Ukrainian government has been eager to receive, as evidenced by Zelensky’s comments during the call, are Javelin anti-armor missiles. Wolters said “you see a little bit of a bounce in the step of a Ukrainian soldier when he or she has had the opportunity to embrace this system that allows them to better defend their turf.” 

Just hours after Wolters sang the praises of the Javelin, the State Department announced it had approved the sale to Ukraine of another 150 of the missiles along with related equipment worth up to $39.2 million. The weapon, State said in a release, will help Ukraine “build its long-term defense capacity to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity in order to meet its national defense requirements.”

It’s rare in a murder case for the family of the victim to show mercy toward the convicted assailant.

Even though many people profess values of “turning the other cheek,” few of them, when confronted with the murder of their child, sibling, parent, or friend, ever reach a point when they can say, “I forgive you.”

Calls for “justice” for the person killed often become a rallying cry at trial and are mirrored by newspaper headlines.   But “justice” is often synonymous with “revenge,” when there’s no room for considering the assailant as a human being with his own tortured story, who’s often sorry for what he did and will carry the burden the rest of his life.

That’s why what happened at the sentencing of former police office Amber Guyger last week in Texas was so surprising.

Guyger was found guilty of killing Botham Jean, her upstairs neighbor.  After returning from a long shift on the job, Guyger parked on the wrong level of her complex and mistakenly entered Jean’s apartment rather than her own.  Believing him to be an intruder, she shot him. (I wrote about this last week and predicted, because of how well she did testifying, that she would be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. But I was wrong. What I didn’t know was that in her testimony, she admitted she intended to kill Jean when she shot him.  Jurors read this as an admission of guilt.)

Texas is among a handful of southern states that permits the jury (as opposed to the judge alone) to determine what sentence the defendant should receive.  In many cases, it makes sense for a jury to decide the sentence in keeping with what the community feels at the time, as opposed to mandatory-minimum sentencing thought up by legislators sometimes decades earlier. In this case, the prosecutor wanted Guyger to receive a 28-year sentence.  The jury, however, decided 10 was enough and the judge agreed.

Sentencing included impromptu testimony given by the deceased’s 18-year-old brother, Brandt Jean.  During a victim-impact statement, Brandt took the stand and detailed how he felt about his brother’s death and what he thought of the defendant. Surprisingly, he called for mercy and not revenge.  He said he wanted the “best” for Guyger and, in a dramatic moment that left even the judge teary-eyed, asked if he could come down from the witness stand and hug Guyger in open court.  He was permitted to do so, and the ensuing video became a news and social media sensation.

The jurors, who’d already decided that 10 years was a fair sentence, felt vindicated in their decision.

According to the Jean family lawyer, Brandt never intended to say anything at the sentencing but was moved at the last moment to state his position. It was unexpected, heartfelt, and showed a remarkable amount of courage to recognize the suffering of the defendant in the midst of his own suffering.  (The judge, also, did something unusual.  Following sentencing, she left the bench, hugged the defendant, and handed her a bible. I can’t imagine that ever happening in New York.)

Outside the courthouse, protestors denounced the 10-year sentence as too short and imposed only because the victim was black and the assailant white, but Brandt stuck to his position — putting Guyger in jail wouldn’t bring his brother back.

Out of the mouth of babes.

Hating the person who killed a sibling and carrying that hate forever doesn’t make anyone better or lessen the grief.  Closure is important, and for those few with the compassion to forgive, perhaps closure comes quicker with forgiveness.

I have my own high-profile sentencing this week in the murder of “Junior” Lesandro Guzman Feliz.  My client, Manuel Rivera, was 18 years old at the time, and although on the scene and pictured in a video of the event, he never intended that “Junior” be killed.  His story and Junior’s intersected in one horrible moment of violence a little over one year ago.  It will now result in each family losing their son as my client will be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years to life, potentially without the possibility of parole.

I had another murder case where my client’s mother and the victim’s mother were in court the same day, sitting just a bench apart.  The victim’s mom wore a T-shirt with her son pictured on it.  The two women didn’t know each other, but I introduced them.  I didn’t know what would happen.

Within seconds, they stood, hugged, and cried, mourning the shared loss of their children.

Somehow it felt more humane, even in the midst of the tragedy, to do that rather than ignoring or hating each other forever.

---

Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Now its 12th year, The Law Department Operations Survey, presented by the Blickstein Group, has been the definitive resource for benchmarking and building understanding around the profession since well before the concept of “legal operations” even entered the general industry parlance.

The LDO Survey provides law departments with a consistent platform to benchmark themselves against their counterparts and industry peers. This survey is intended for the top person in legal ops organizations and addresses subjects ranging from ALSPs, Artificial Intelligence, Technology Effectiveness, Alternative Fee Arrangements, and more than 100 additional data points.

If you are your organization’s operations head, please participate in this year’s survey and receive exclusive access to the complete results, an unparalleled resource of insight into KPIs and reporting, eDiscovery best practices, legal spend, law department management strategy, and more. (A publicly available report on the survey’s findings will be published later in the year.)

TAKE THE SURVEY HERE.

Suppose you produce documents to a regulator.

The regulator writes back, asking you to identify specific documents by Bates number.

Outside counsel said that you’d provide the Bates numbers by Monday.

On Tuesday, you weren’t sure if the Bates numbers had yet been provided.  So you sent an email to outside counsel:

“I haven’t yet seen a note transmitting the Bates numbers.  Have you sent the information?”

The phone rang:  “I haven’t sent the regulator the Bates numbers yet.  This is harder than I expected.”

“Okay.  Did you send a note to the regulator saying that you weren’t sending the Bates numbers, as you had promised, apologizing for this, and telling the regulator when you’d actually be producing the numbers?”

“No.”

“Why not?  What do you suppose the regulator is thinking?”

“I don’t know what he’s thinking.  Maybe he’s thinking, ‘I have the damn documents.  It’s my job to look through them.  I have no right to ask BigCo to specify Bates numbers, and I should just do my job.’”

I understand the frustration of outside counsel.  Identifying Bates numbers is no fun — even for the associate who’s actually doing the work.  But I guarantee you that the regulator is not thinking, “Gee, I suppose this problem is my fault.”  People don’t think that way.  The regulator is thinking, “You promised the information on Monday.  You didn’t get it to me on Monday.  You’re irresponsible, and I’m going to hold this against you.”

So you can either prompt this reaction — by your silence — or write a note to prevent this reaction.

Which do you suppose is better?

It’s just common sense.

Here’s another example:  Last year, you got settlement authority of $450,000 in a case.  It turns out the case will settle for $457,000.  Two choices:  Put in the computer system that, “We need $457,000 to settle a case.”  Or enter into the computer system, “Last year, you approved $450,000 to settle a case.  It turns out that we need slightly more than that to make the case go away.  I’m submitting a request for an extra $7,000, for a cumulative total of $457,000 to settle the case.  The current request for approval relates only to the incremental $7,000.”

Which is right?

One causes the reader to curse:  “This is a big request for settlement authority!  How come I haven’t heard about it before?  Why are these things always being thrown on my desk without warning?”  The reader will then flip through the computer, figure out what’s really happening, and curse again:  “Why didn’t they tell me it was just a $7,000 increase?  This is nothing; I could have approved it in my sleep.  What idiots for not explaining the situation to me!”

You didn’t get any credit for this having been an insignificant request.  Rather, you were mentally cursed once for the appearance of it having been significant and were then cursed a second time for not having explained the situation.

Try to avoid having your boss curse you twice. 

I know what you’re thinking:  “Herrmann, you’re such an idiot!  Why are you writing about two discrete situations?  They won’t occur in my life.  Why waste time with this?”

Of course these precise situations won’t occur in your life.  You’re supposed to reason by analogy.  Consider how the other person will react, and then preempt the negative reaction.

The potential client receives an email from outside counsel prospecting for business:

“You were just sued in my local federal court.  I thought you might appreciate the notice.  I’ve attached a link.”

What does in-house counsel think?  Two choices:  “I really must hire this person.  That email contains truly thoughtful analysis of the new case.”  Or:  “What an idiot.  He sent me the link without any explanation of what’s behind it.  He’s a fool, and he surely doesn’t deserve to get retained.”

In terms of business development, sending the email was worse than nothing.  You affirmatively decreased your chances of being hired.

Or suppose you must send some task to your boss, a computer illiterate, through the computer system.  How do you follow up?  Two choices:  Not at all.  The computer will nudge your boss, and your boss will figure out what to do.  Or:  Send an email.  “The computer will soon nudge you to do X.  This relates to the case of Y.  You must go into the computer system and approve what we’ve done.  I’ve attached a link to the relevant page of the computer system below.  If you approve of our action (and, in my opinion, you should), please click on the link and indicate your approval.”

See?

It’s a pain in the neck.  But the truth is that no one cares about you.  People care about themselves.  So, be loved:  Make life easy for the other guy.

It’s the golden rule.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

The ethics rules that govern Federal judges are kinda a mess, and Elizabeth Warren has a plan to fix it (natch). Yesterday was the anniversary of the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, arguably a nadir for judicial ethics, and so, today Elizabeth Warren unveiled her latest plan, this one to revamp the judicial ethics rules.

The problem of ethical inquiries being stymied by judges leaving their current jobs has reached a crescendo. The inquiry into Kavanaugh’s behavior disappeared because he left the D.C. Circuit when he got elevated to the Supreme Court. The inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment in the chambers of once-prominent Ninth Circuit judge Alex Kozinski were halted, mid-controversy, when Kozinski handed in his retirement papers. Judge Maryanne Trump Barry pulled a similar move when she retired from the Third Circuit, ending all hope that an ethics inquiry would reveal whether the judge was involved in tax evasion.

Warren’s plan would allow these inquiries to continue, as reported by Huffington Post:

“My plan extends the authority of the Judicial Conference to former judges so that individuals under investigation cannot simply resign from the bench to avoid accountability,” Warren said. “This provision would allow the judiciary to reopen the investigations into Alex Kozinski, Maryanne Trump-Barry, Brett Kavanaugh, and any other judge who benefited from this loophole.”

And what about the lack of accountability for the Supreme Court? Does the fact that the Code of Conduct for United States Judges does not extend to the Supreme Court rile you up? Warren too. Her judicial ethics plan would extend the Code’s reach to the high court

“Because the Supreme Court is not covered by a Code of Conduct, no procedure exists to file new complaints” against Kavanaugh, Warren said.

She added that “questions are often raised about the behavior of Supreme Court Justices, such as Justice Thomas’s 13 years of financial disclosures that failed to list $690,000 in payments to his wife from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing judicial activist group ― but these actions are beyond the scope of current rules.”

Such lack of oversight, Warren said, has gone on for long enough.

“These changes will not only allow us to ensure accountability for bad actors, including reopening inquiries into the conduct of offenders like Brett Kavanaugh,” she wrote. “They will also hold the vast majority of judges who act in good faith to the highest ethical standards, and in the process, begin to restore accountability and trust in a fair and impartial federal judiciary.”

Warren’s plan would also take recusal decisions out of the hands of the judge involved, require SCOTUS to give a written decision when a party asks for a recusal, and give disciplinary tools — such as revoking nonvested pensions — to judicial ethics watchdogs.

Sounds a lot better than just crossing our fingers and hoping judges and justices will act ethically.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Kinney Recruiting is assisting an AmLaw 100 firm on its search for a Trusts and Estates attorney to join it’s thriving Chicago practice. This firm is renowned for its outstanding culture and it does not hire an associate without a plan for the attorney to become a partner. We are seeking a T&E attorney with at least four years’ experience to work closely with two of the firm’s leading T&E partners and to make a career with the firm. The hired associate will also assist other partners in the group but most of the work will come from the two leaders.

The practice that you would join includes business succession and philanthropic planning, tax, wealth preservation, family office management, trust administration, creation of estate plans, and the management and protection of wealth. Additionally, the groups advises financial professionals, and clients on the funding, creation, and maintenance of business entities and trusts.

This firm is offering top compensation, a long career, and the opportunity to work with its best T&E partners. If you are interested in learning more, please apply through this posting or submit your resume to jobs@kinneyrecruiting.com.

Delivering Efficient and Effective Box Reviews: 2 Powerful Case Studies

Environmental and Construction Litigation

A public entity involved in environmental and construction litigation, engaged Hire Counsel to locate specific documents in 1,500 boxes containing files dating back up to 100 years. The project management team set up facilities, identified processes, oversaw quality control and managed the communication flow between the contract team and attorney supervisors.

Outcome: Project delivered successfully and the next review is on the horizon.

Product Liability Litigation

A National Healthcare Organization was facing product liability litigation which necessitated a review of thousands of boxes of documents at five storage facilities around the country. A team of 100 document review professionals was mobilized to index, code and scan the contents.

Outcome: Review was completed on time and under budget, client has re-engaged for additional projects.

Hire Counsel employs the people, the process and the fortitude to get it done right.

They have the resources and processes to provide the right solution to meet even your most formidable document review needs – anywhere, anytime. All of their services are aimed at reducing risk to clients and increasing review team output while also providing a defensible process on time and on budget.

Project Management, Workflow Optimization and Reporting

Project managers work directly with the client’s delivery team to plan logistics, manage productivity, ensure performance and deliver daily reporting.

National Footprint

Hire Counsel can source multiple markets simultaneously and quickly set up review facilities anywhere.

Proprietary Candidate Database & Search Methods

Allows for quick identification and qualification of the candidates.

When you need the right legal talent, in the right place, at the right time, you need Hire Counsel.