Electronics manufacturers, Auto manufacturers, Auto Parts manufacturers, Pharmaceuticals....all in litigation. There are so many Japanese related companies in adverse situations that I'm thinking about buying Rosetta Stone and catching a piece of the document review action that's going around.
Since the middle of last year the value of the Japanese fluent reviewer- both attorney and non attorney has risen %50. If you are fluent in Japanese, Now would seem to be the time to rack up on as many projects as possible!...or is it?
What many of the reviewers, firms and agencies have forgotten about in this golden age of Kanji that though litigation may be infinite, the number of reviewers are fixed. What ever are you talking about Gregory??? Well my friend I'm talking about a little thing called conflicting out.
Simple math will tell you that when you have a fixed number going up against and infinite pooling that the numbers are sure to repeat. ( Huh?). Sorry about that. basically when you have so many cases in need of Japanese language reviewers many of the reviewers will conflict out based on their prior review experiences. I personally have seen some of the lists that firms and companies have drawn up that will eliminate reviewers from contention. One of the firm's list was five pages long.
Worked on electronics?- sorry!
Pharmaceuticals?- Nope!
Auto- Better luck next time!
Now think about this- Most of the discovery hasn't even mad its way to the Plaintiffs in the case yet. Now how are they going to find people?... you can get Rosetta Stone for a real good price on eBay I heard.
So how do we fix this problem and save the world?...Maybe the reigns of the conflicts qualifications need to be loosened a little by the firms? Maybe exclusivity on reviewers needs to be given to firms? Some firms have asked that reviewers sign an agreement where they pledge not to take on any projects at other firms for 6-12 months. What???
This has long been a discussion amount recruiters and firms in the legal industry. Does a document reviewer electronically tagging documents actually provide the type of "representation" on a matter that would qualify as a conflict?
Well lets look at the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and figure this out. I guess the key verb in this would be "represent."
a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client
(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and
(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter;
unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or
(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.
To what level of "representation" does a document reviewer's work arise?....hmmmm.
How do you say conflicts in Japanese again?
Oh yeah...
"対立"
To be continued......
No comments:
Post a Comment