This is Crab Media's fifth essay on the litigation support document review market in metropolitan DC. This one involves some awkward, graphic details; be advised.
During my work in multi-lingual document review and litigation support, I have encountered a great many wonderful attorneys of a variety of skill sets, experiences and perspectives. Some of the most interesting people I have met in my professional life, actually.
But then there are the crazies experiences and, occasionally, crazy people.
On my very first project, I got seated next a group of political firebrands - two very liberal Democrats and three Limbaugh fans. And did they love to gripe and argue! One would open the New York Times openly while billing the client, read Paul Krugman aloud and explain why the ditto-heads were crazy. I don't mean for 5 minutes - more like 40-45 minutes it would start. I was new, so I was a little reluctant to get mouthy about such things. The project tolerated it for a while, then called them out and fired them semi-publicly. Not all at once, but in a sort of obvious way.
Then I got cut, though to this day I don't know why. I assume it was my inexperience, incompetence or slow speed, since I did not present any "attitude problems" and my agency was happy to place me on another project promptly. It may have been that because I sat next to the "McLoud-lin group", they cut me as presumed cancerous tissue; the project had about 150 attorneys and was infamous for its unwieldiness.
On my next project, there was an attorney who behaved a bit, well, tensely. If anyone talked, she would shush them, loudly. This was a very relaxed project in which management openly encouraged us to talk with one another to solve problems, discuss strategies for reviewing the material or the appropriateness of coding tags; not all projects were this way but this one was. But she shushed us. Sitting across from her was a gregarious former upper-level partner of a large DC firm who, I suspect for his health and more travel-friendly lifestyle for his trips to New York and out west, took a position in document review. He loved to talk, had an old-school give of the gab and regarded the "shusher" with open antipathy. The shusher actually built up a wall of personal items to keep us speakers out of her "universe" - hairbrushes, toiletries, etc. I actually liked the shusher as a person, but she was regarded as an odd duck (as, probably, have I at times.) Ultimately, as things became more tense, "personnel changes were instituted."
On another project, I met the cheapest guy on Earth. I will call him "Pete." "Pete" was proud to be cheap, regarded the label as a boast, not a slur. He would rail against the agency for only allowing him to get 90 hours in a week when he had the stamina to get 100+. My only issue with him was my rock-bottom insistence that he go home and bathe daily; he lived close and did comply with that modest request. When we got a $15.00 food allowance, he would berate me loudly for only spending $14.87 of it at a Mexican carryout (I would buy both lunch and dinner on one ticket, as permitted.) If the coffee were bad, he would gripe. If the bathrooms were being cleaned, he would gripe, regarding the john, I guess, as a form of in-kind income. I got under his nerves badly by working steadily even near the end of a project; he would yell at me to slow down to prolong the available hours, told me I was an idiot. And he did it all with a U.S. regional accent that I won't identify, but which was so thick that I could only understand him maybe 85% of the time. A true character.
There was the infamous woman whom I did not meet (thank goodness), but who would plumb the depths of hygiene rejection. When her neighbors complained that she was sitting in a large pile of newspapers stained with her own pooled menstrual blood, she would ask them harshly whether they had "a problem." She got fired. Other attorneys got fired for fighting over a chair, a testosterone battle on which the winner got a chair and the threat of a butt-kicking, and the loser got canned. All licensed lawyers, mind you. I had heard of attorneys engaging in hard-core unethical conduct on billing, but always in the form of rumors about strangers, even rumors of attorneys managing to "triple bill": reporting hours on two projects simultaneously, being absent at one, present and goldbricking on the other while working on billable matters for their solo practice clients. Unethical if true, of course, and apocryphal.
I have been on document review projects where my female colleagues were remarkably free in their extended discussions of their bodies, specifically how they fear getting a black eye when they jog. Since I know nothing of sports bras but know a lot about how employment laws work both theoretically and practically, I took that discussion as, in the words of Jacques Chirac, an excellent opportunity to shut up.
Beyond document review, I have done "traditional" big firm temp work, specifically in capital markets document drafting and editing for bond closings. I am happy that that work exists; may others choose it freely if so inclined. But once you have witnessed a mid-level associate browbeat and mock a contract attorney "associate" to the point of tears over the phone, you implicitly make a career decision: deal, or no deal. I know the choice I made.
The peculiar cast of characters has not been limited to contract attorneys either. The supervising attorneys - staff attorneys, associates, counsel and partners - have ranged in professionalism from pouting brats to consummate professionals, happily much more the latter than the former. In general, I have perceived an inverse relationship between the size of a project and the professionalism of its management. The projects that look like zoos act like zoos. Snotty, unprofessional behavior from supervisors has been a rarity and absolutely non-existent on small-medium projects. More often one sees that the professionals in charge care passionately about getting work done well, and the sheer laser-like focus of some of these fine attorneys has impressed me most of all. Interestingly, the associates and staff attorneys have varied in their styles from every buttoned-down, straight-arrows to tattoo-covered "cool people." One can hear horror stories of truly dehumanizing conditions at some projects but I have had a pretty good run so far with no real disasters.
In general, I have found agencies to be very professional in their management of the core function as regards contract attorneys: accurate hours and prompt pay. Some handle direct deposit better than others but I have found only one agency to have had any problems with paycheck accuracy. While my experience with that agency was initially negative, requiring a nastygram to get my proper pay, a second go-round after some personnel changes was much, much better with excellent administration running the show.
The cases I have worked on have been interesting, usually involving antitrust or similar laws. I cannot go into the specific subject matter or project names of course, but the work itself has been on net a gratifying and an educational experience. For every "oddball" I have met probably 9-12 impressive professionals with a great variety of reasons for working in the unusual field of document review. Many LLM and returning MBA students use this work as an education-friendly cash source during their studies. Others take full advantage of its flexibility for personal or professional gain. Some use it as a source for capital to start a law or non-law enterprise. Others are doing as a holding pattern until their ideal federal job opens up. It truly takes all kinds.
Labels: document review, law practice
Trackback
Permalink/Below the Fold




