header-logo header-logo

Force for change?

04 August 2017 / Ben Fielding
Issue: 7757 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Is legislative change contributing to a demand for outsourced document review & compliance services? Ben Fielding

The unbundling of legal services has been the subject of much debate ever since the first instances of legal outsourcing were documented. However, while drivers in the past have been cost savings made possible by technological advances, recent legislative changes look set to increase the demand for outsourced document review and compliance services.

Traditional document review is a classic example of legal process outsourcing. Typically law firms and corporations reach out to external providers because of time pressures, the need for teams of multilingual lawyers to be assembled at short notice and cost savings. Projects like this are arranged reactively and although project management and forensic data collection is important, the document review task is linear and short term.

However, two major changes to legislation are about to be implemented that are already changing the way companies and in-house counsel are using resources such as document review lawyers, ediscovery vendors and project managers.

Changes to legislation not only require an

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll