Litigation Support Staffing - Grow Organically or Import?
Litigation support staffing...yes, these days it presents an interesting quandary, but not one that cannot be solved with a little out of the box thinking.
There is no doubt there is a dearth of mature talent in the marketspace. Fortune 1000 Corporations and the AMLAW 250 have been fishing in the same finite Litigation/Practice Support talent pool for a few years now and as to be expected, the mature stock has been depleted. So, the question, so aptly put by so many litigation support managers is , grow organically or import? If you grow organically, there are largely 2 groups from which to pull talent, IT and the Paralegal Corps. One can certainly groom a tech savvy legal assistant for the litigation support role and the same is true for IT folks that have the aptitude and desire to learn more about the Litigation Data Lifecycle issues and processes. I doubt there is little argument against this approach, in fact its the right thing for many organizations that want to fill the traditional litigation support role.
I think the last 4 words of the above paragraph should trigger some thinking. If you are grooming to backfill a role, fine. If you are grooming to have competitive advantage and differentiators that affect the bottom line, perhaps a slightly different approach might be in order. Lets face it, given the ever increasingly technical and procedural complexities brought on by legal precedent and legislation, in the litigation support data lifecycle management field and the role of the litigation support department is increasingly advisory. Once upon a time (its still the case to a large extent), litigation support personnel were perceived as data jockeys.
Today, its not uncommon to have litigation support personnel assist with FRCP 26 planning and conferences. Obviously, this level of assistance is of a highly consultative nature, notwithstanding the fact that the personnel that render this kind of assistance have the corps competencies of their more traditional predecessors. The "new" litigation support professional bills (to the extent this is the model used by the firm) at a higher rate, and is a client facing person who can also help clients with litigation response plans.
Where might one find the profile for this type of person? Law schools. What qualifications may they have? When I was in law school I met lots of folks that had MICROSOFT certifications, networking experience and the like - I was one of them. A good complement of these folks are seeking the kind of career paths that many law firms could and should offer them, but the out of the box thinking that facilitates these types of dialogs, simply have not gained significant ground yet.
At the end of the day, the point is as follows; yes...its great to cross pollinate from the existing stock, but if we use nature as a guide, enhancing the gene pool with an infusion of characteristics and traits from non traditional human capital resource pools that create a new litigation support phenotype (I was a bio major once) and skill set profile. I think this is probably where we'll see the industry heading.
There is no doubt there is a dearth of mature talent in the marketspace. Fortune 1000 Corporations and the AMLAW 250 have been fishing in the same finite Litigation/Practice Support talent pool for a few years now and as to be expected, the mature stock has been depleted. So, the question, so aptly put by so many litigation support managers is , grow organically or import? If you grow organically, there are largely 2 groups from which to pull talent, IT and the Paralegal Corps. One can certainly groom a tech savvy legal assistant for the litigation support role and the same is true for IT folks that have the aptitude and desire to learn more about the Litigation Data Lifecycle issues and processes. I doubt there is little argument against this approach, in fact its the right thing for many organizations that want to fill the traditional litigation support role.
I think the last 4 words of the above paragraph should trigger some thinking. If you are grooming to backfill a role, fine. If you are grooming to have competitive advantage and differentiators that affect the bottom line, perhaps a slightly different approach might be in order. Lets face it, given the ever increasingly technical and procedural complexities brought on by legal precedent and legislation, in the litigation support data lifecycle management field and the role of the litigation support department is increasingly advisory. Once upon a time (its still the case to a large extent), litigation support personnel were perceived as data jockeys.
Today, its not uncommon to have litigation support personnel assist with FRCP 26 planning and conferences. Obviously, this level of assistance is of a highly consultative nature, notwithstanding the fact that the personnel that render this kind of assistance have the corps competencies of their more traditional predecessors. The "new" litigation support professional bills (to the extent this is the model used by the firm) at a higher rate, and is a client facing person who can also help clients with litigation response plans.
Where might one find the profile for this type of person? Law schools. What qualifications may they have? When I was in law school I met lots of folks that had MICROSOFT certifications, networking experience and the like - I was one of them. A good complement of these folks are seeking the kind of career paths that many law firms could and should offer them, but the out of the box thinking that facilitates these types of dialogs, simply have not gained significant ground yet.
At the end of the day, the point is as follows; yes...its great to cross pollinate from the existing stock, but if we use nature as a guide, enhancing the gene pool with an infusion of characteristics and traits from non traditional human capital resource pools that create a new litigation support phenotype (I was a bio major once) and skill set profile. I think this is probably where we'll see the industry heading.
posted by Richard E. Davis, JD at 12:24 PM
1 Comments:
Interesting points, but as a professional in the human capital business, I see all those those JD’s who have MS Certs but, lets say no Concordance or Summation. Most of them want 70-100K and very few firms are willing to train or take the risk. Your point is well taken, and what is most true is the lack of established talent. I see it as a bit of a chess game and it is the perspective of the client that will need changing, as well as the talent pool. Otherwise guys like me are forced to move the same pieces around and around, as opposed to inventing new pieces.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home