Saturday, January 23, 2016
A National Seminar on Privacy & Data Protection | Indian National Bar Association
A National Seminar on Privacy & Data Protection | Indian National Bar Association: INBA in association with Sharda University, School of Law Presents A National Seminar on Privacy & Data Protection (On the occasion of International Data Privacy day) On 28th January, 2016 11:00am- 1:00pm Venue: Sharda University, School of Law Knowledge Park III, Greater Noida (U.P.) Objective: Data Privacy Day’s goals are to raise awareness and educate …
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Monday, October 6, 2014
Landmark United States Supreme Court Cases
Landmark United States Supreme Court Cases
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Issue: Does the First Amendment prohibit public school officials from barring students’ from wearing black armbands to symbolize anti-war political protest?
Result: According to the Court, yes. The Supreme Court held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech…at the schoolhouse gate.” Consequently, the Court found that the students’ speech could only be prohibited if it actually disrupted the educational process. Because there was no evidence of such a disruption, the school was in violation of the First Amendment freedom of speech.
Result: According to the Court, yes. The Supreme Court held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech…at the schoolhouse gate.” Consequently, the Court found that the students’ speech could only be prohibited if it actually disrupted the educational process. Because there was no evidence of such a disruption, the school was in violation of the First Amendment freedom of speech.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Issue: Does the Constitution prohibit laws that severely restrict or deny a woman’s access to abortion?
Result: Yes. The Court concluded that such laws violate the Constitution’s right to privacy. The Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, states may only restrict abortions toward the end of a pregnancy, in order to protect the life of the woman or the fetus.
Result: Yes. The Court concluded that such laws violate the Constitution’s right to privacy. The Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, states may only restrict abortions toward the end of a pregnancy, in order to protect the life of the woman or the fetus.
Issue : Can an institution of higher learning use race as a factor when making admissions decisions?
Result : The Court held that universities may use race as part of an admissions process so long as “fixed quotas” are not used. The Court determined that the specific system in place at the University of California Medical School was “unnecessary” to achieve the goal of creating a diverse student body and was merely a “fixed quota” and therefore, was unconstitutional. The decision started a line of cases in which the Court upheld affirmative action programs. In 2003, such academic affirmative action programs were again directly challenged in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. In these cases, the Court clarified that admission programs that include race as a factor can pass constitutional muster so long as the policy is narrowly tailored and does not create an automatic preference based on race. The Court asserted that a system that created an automatic race-based preference would in fact violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Result : The Court held that universities may use race as part of an admissions process so long as “fixed quotas” are not used. The Court determined that the specific system in place at the University of California Medical School was “unnecessary” to achieve the goal of creating a diverse student body and was merely a “fixed quota” and therefore, was unconstitutional. The decision started a line of cases in which the Court upheld affirmative action programs. In 2003, such academic affirmative action programs were again directly challenged in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. In these cases, the Court clarified that admission programs that include race as a factor can pass constitutional muster so long as the policy is narrowly tailored and does not create an automatic preference based on race. The Court asserted that a system that created an automatic race-based preference would in fact violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Debt Collection Outsourcing India
Debt Collection Outsourcing India
India has attracted many technology jobs in recent years from Western nations, particularly the United States. Now, it is on its way to becoming a hub in another offshore outsourcing area – debt collection. According to the industry report, units of General Electric, Citigroup, HSBC Holdings and American Express have used their India-based staff to pursue credit card debt and mortgage payment by calling defaulters. US debt collection agencies are the newest to start outsourcing their work to India and are satisfied with the results produced by the polite but persistent Indian experts. After insurance claims and credit card sales, debt collection is a growing business for outsourcing companies at a time of downturn in the US economy when consumers struggle to pay for their purchases. Debt collection is a vital and growing component of US economy. There is more than $2.5 trillion in outstanding consumer debt. As a result, the third-party collection industry makes more than one billion contacts with consumers each year. Recently this year, more than $39.3 billion in debt was returned to creditors. Indians have the advantage of lower salaries and other expenses, which cut drastically costs of collecting debts. Debt collectors in India cost as little as one-quarter the price of their US and European counterparts and are often better at the job. Many such Indian firms run 24-hour services. Indian debt-collection companies comply with strict regulations on operations in the American and / or European markets.
India has attracted many technology jobs in recent years from Western nations, particularly the United States. Now, it is on its way to becoming a hub in another offshore outsourcing area – debt collection. According to the industry report, units of General Electric, Citigroup, HSBC Holdings and American Express have used their India-based staff to pursue credit card debt and mortgage payment by calling defaulters. US debt collection agencies are the newest to start outsourcing their work to India and are satisfied with the results produced by the polite but persistent Indian experts. After insurance claims and credit card sales, debt collection is a growing business for outsourcing companies at a time of downturn in the US economy when consumers struggle to pay for their purchases. Debt collection is a vital and growing component of US economy. There is more than $2.5 trillion in outstanding consumer debt. As a result, the third-party collection industry makes more than one billion contacts with consumers each year. Recently this year, more than $39.3 billion in debt was returned to creditors. Indians have the advantage of lower salaries and other expenses, which cut drastically costs of collecting debts. Debt collectors in India cost as little as one-quarter the price of their US and European counterparts and are often better at the job. Many such Indian firms run 24-hour services. Indian debt-collection companies comply with strict regulations on operations in the American and / or European markets.
Legal Outsourcing and its growth in India
Legal Outsourcing and its growth in India
This article analyze the emergence of LPO in India, as well as its future growth. The outsourcing originally denoted the practice of sending work to third party companies in the U.S., it gradually expanded to include sending work abroad, a practice that eventuallyeclipsed domestic outsourcing. Offshore outsourcing is not a new phenomenon. Companies have been referring work to foreign third parties for many years. In the 1990's, as organizations began to focus more on cost-saving measures, they started to outsource those functions necessary to run a company but not related specifically to the core business.
The service industry now known as “Business Process Outsourcing” (“BPO in a relatively short period of time, global outsourcing has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Since the turn of the 21st century, growth has snowballed, going from approximately $119 billion in 2000 to approximately $234 billion in 2005. By the end of 2008, revenues are projected to rise to around $310 billion. The United States is one of the biggest consumers of outsourcing services. Approximately 59% of the global trade in outsourced work originates in North America. The next closest consumer is the European Union, which consumes approximately 27% of the market. Love it or hateit, offshoring is here to stay, and the trend appears to be for more offshoring, not less.
Legal Process Offshoring (“LPO”) was developed as a KPO service set for the legal industry. LPO can be traced back as far as 1995, when the law firm Bickel and Brewer first opened a satellite office to processadministrative. The most modern incarnation of LPO dates back to 2001, when GE created a captive center in Gurgaon, India to absorb in-house legal work. The usefulness of captive LPO centers was initially limited because it was difficult to get workflow to and from the captive centers in a timely fashion. Over the last couple of years, technological advancements have enabled service providers to make LPO more responsive—and potentially more useful—to law firms in primary markets such as the United States and United Kingdom.
This article analyze the emergence of LPO in India, as well as its future growth. The outsourcing originally denoted the practice of sending work to third party companies in the U.S., it gradually expanded to include sending work abroad, a practice that eventuallyeclipsed domestic outsourcing. Offshore outsourcing is not a new phenomenon. Companies have been referring work to foreign third parties for many years. In the 1990's, as organizations began to focus more on cost-saving measures, they started to outsource those functions necessary to run a company but not related specifically to the core business.
The service industry now known as “Business Process Outsourcing” (“BPO in a relatively short period of time, global outsourcing has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Since the turn of the 21st century, growth has snowballed, going from approximately $119 billion in 2000 to approximately $234 billion in 2005. By the end of 2008, revenues are projected to rise to around $310 billion. The United States is one of the biggest consumers of outsourcing services. Approximately 59% of the global trade in outsourced work originates in North America. The next closest consumer is the European Union, which consumes approximately 27% of the market. Love it or hateit, offshoring is here to stay, and the trend appears to be for more offshoring, not less.
Legal Process Offshoring (“LPO”) was developed as a KPO service set for the legal industry. LPO can be traced back as far as 1995, when the law firm Bickel and Brewer first opened a satellite office to processadministrative. The most modern incarnation of LPO dates back to 2001, when GE created a captive center in Gurgaon, India to absorb in-house legal work. The usefulness of captive LPO centers was initially limited because it was difficult to get workflow to and from the captive centers in a timely fashion. Over the last couple of years, technological advancements have enabled service providers to make LPO more responsive—and potentially more useful—to law firms in primary markets such as the United States and United Kingdom.
LPO Regulatory Trends in 2011
LPO Regulatory Trends in 2011
As legal outsourcing (LPO) industry hitting double-digit growth rates, regulators & representative bodies can no longer ignore this dynamic new market. In the main LPO markets the United States, United Kingdom & India there is the potential for rule changes which could place outsourcing agreements under increased scrutiny or even have a material impact on the ability of law firms & companies to send legal work to outside providers. The regulation is going to be the single most important issue in LPO this year. it is not expected that there will be any revolutionary changes however it is intended to regulate the legal outsourcing industry in more effective.
The American Bar Association (ABA) has set up a working group to examine the implications of advancing know-how & globalisation for the legal industry that is the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20. The group has released proposed changes to the ABA model rules & has invited feedback from industry participants. The changes, which include a provision that the law firm outsourcing legal work ought to make definite it is in the best interest of clients, won’t cause a major shift in the regulatory regime. The ABA is due to submit its recommendations to the House of Delegates in August this year. Independent from the ABA, a Connecticut lawmaker recently proposed a bill aimed at curtailing offshore legal outsourcing. While the bill is not expected to go anywhere, it sets off another round of debate regarding the unauthorized practice of law.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has been slower to answer the burgeoning LPO industry in the United Kingdom, however, it’s indicated that it is likely to over out a thematic review on the subject in 2011. The SRA will study if there need to modify regulatory requirements or increase its supervision of LPO arrangements. The body is already thinking about LPO as part of its consultation in the new Solicitors Handbook. The Law Society, which has delegated regulation to the SRA but which still represents the legal industry, has also hinted that it will address LPO in 2011. The Law Society intend to examine the impact of LPO on, in particular, the development of junior solicitors as more of their work is sent abroad, & the risks for firms in terms of professional indemnity insurance.
India where most outsourced legal work is carried out also has of the most intractable regulatory regimes. Among the recent developments is the Chennai Writ Petition, a legal action brought by local practitioners against 31 international law firms & LPO provider aimed at stopping foreign firms from practicing in India. It is definite that Indian government is unlikely to permit anything which might damage the growing local LPO market. However, the LPO industry ought to keep an eye on the Ministry of Law & Justice designs to tighten overall regulation of the corporate legal sector. This will probably move slowly but is a fascinating statement of intent which could help to clarify the boundaries between the regulated legal sector & legal technique outsourcers & make definite that the LPO industry does not get embroiled again in the foreign lawyer controversy in India.
Top ten points before Outsourcing legal Services
Top ten points before Outsourcing legal Services
Part I - As various state and city bar associations have blessed offshore legal process outsourcing subject to compliance with many specific ethical considerations. The ethics opinions frame the minimum standards for lawyers to avoid losing their licenses.
Beyond such ethical and disciplinary considerations, the big question is how to make LPO effective and within the ethical framework and suggests some business management issues that require individual attention by corporate counsel and law firms considering significant levels of LPO.
Avoid Unauthorized Practice of the Law
Ethics opinions of bar associations generally hold a lawyer hiring or supervising an LPO provider responsible for facilitation, by action or inaction, of the unauthorized practice of the law. The Florida’s Bar Association attempted to provide some clarity to this concept by suggesting a rights-based analysis whether an activity constitutes the practice of law. The bar opinions generally refrain from concluding that any particular LPO constitutes “unauthorized practice,” leaving that issue open for the attorney and the courts to decide in each case.
Avoid Malpractice
There is nothing unethical about lawyer outsourcing legal and nonlegal services.” But to be legal, the lawyer who outsources any legal or nonlegal function must render legal services to the client with the “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. This is sometimes referred to as the “duty of competency. A lawyer engaging others to deliver non-legal or legal services must make “reasonable efforts” to ensure that the third-party service provider, if a lawyer, conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct and, if not a lawyer, delivers the services in a manner that is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)