Predictive Coding & Judge Peck’s Decision

Posted by Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

On February 24^th, Judge Peck of the New York Magistrate announced the first public approval of predictive coding by the US court system. The decision to embrace predictive coding as a legitimate technique to be employed in the eDiscovery process will have a tremendous impact on the industry as a whole. This is truly groundbreaking news as the litigation technology industry is now making a major leap forward, aimed at putting the monotony of document review in the past. We will now see hosted document review become a far more competitive market amongst the top vendors in the eDiscovery competitive landscape.  Companies like Recommind which have been at the cutting edge of implementing predictive coding into their list of developing technologies will likely see increased competition as their peers attempt to challenge their position as market leaders.

As it becomes apparent that predictive coding will grow and prosper one may be lead to ask; what does that mean for the job market? The answer is opportunity! We are going to see a spike in demand for specific skill sets associated with the pertinent technology. This means that eDiscovery organizations will be seeking software developers, project managers, and sales representatives. Being on the recruiting side of these recent developments here at the Glenmont Group, we have become inundated with requests for top talent within the predictive coding environment. Judge Peck’s ruling is creating outstanding opportunities in the eDiscovery space and will continue to keep our industry moving forward.

Meet The Super Commuters

Posted by Kate Potters, COO at Glenmont Group

Super Commuting or long-distance commuting typically involves Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

I was listening to the radio as I was driving the 1.2 miles home from work the other day and heard a story about the so-called “Super Commuters”. This is a growing trend, born out of necessity or desire to commute via plane to a job in another state.

Most of these professionals leave early Monday morning and come home either Thursday or Friday. Some are lucky enough to have a home office and fly back and forth bimonthly.  Motivations vary, for many of them, they mention their desire to not uproot their families, for others cost of living is a big factor. Although the housing market is improving homeowners are still upside down on their houses and can’t afford to take a six figure loss. Can you blame them? A financial services executive who was forced into it when his company went bankrupt commented, “Super commuting has some advantages–forces you to maximize your time, especially with your family. And, frankly, it can allow you to devote more time to work without having to worry about family obligations.”

The articles I read referred to a study by New York University for WNYC. In this article you will find an fun  graphic showing all the routes of people commuting to New York.  I know a number of people who commute and leave the NY area to work in Boston, Florida and Atlanta. I also know someone who commutes from Minnesota to Texas and another who is traveling from Ohio to Boston.

Companies are more flexible especially if they feel that they’ve found the perfect person for the job.  Even with 8% unemployment, it’s difficult to find talented people within certain knowledge and expertise. What’s your story? Are you a Super Commuter and why are you doing it?

Here is another article for your reading pleasure.

Five Tips On How To Work With Recruiters

Posted by Dana Fink, Director of Staffing at Glenmont group

After a crazy week of both candiates and clients not being completely forthcoming with all information needed (fibbing is putting it mildly) I felt a back to basics lesson on how to work with recruiters was required reading. The need to be completly forthcoming and honest is the only way to manage your career search.

This simple article on recruiter.com was just a quick “how to” I thought would be helpful.

FIVE TIPS ON HOW TO WORK WITH RECRUITERS

Working with recruiters is the next best thing to working with hiring managers. Recruitment professionals know their clients and they pride themselves on knowing their candidates in the hopes of making the right connections. In order to make this happen there are a few things you need to know:

TELL THEM EVERYTHING: When building a relationship with a recruiter, this is no time to be shy. Recruiters need to know everything there is to know about you and what you are looking for in your career, i.e. salary, perks, specific employers, etc. Building an effective relationship with a professional recruiter starts with trust and honesty, so be forthcoming with your requests.

FIND OUT EVERYTHING: Relationships are a two way street. When working with a professional recruiter you need to know as much about them as it relates to their capabilities and ability to help you secure employment. Do a thorough background check on the recruiter and/or the company. Review all the social networking sites where the recruiter does business and if they do not recruit via these new mediums, be aware; it might mean that they are not keeping up with workforce trends and new recruiting practices.

COMMUNICATE OFTEN: Unfortunately securing a recruitment professional does not mean you will secure employment immediately. There can be a lot of waiting involved. Sitting still and waiting for the phone to ring is not an option for you. You are part of the communication equation and you must take an active role in all aspects of your career.

Approach your job hunt like you already have a job. If you see something online, hear about it on a website, see it on the news – contact your recruitment professional and collaborate with them on a game plan. Good recruiters are savvy and well connected, like real estate agents. They tend to know where all the hot properties are. However, they can not be everywhere, so the more hands they can have working in your favor the better.

BE REALISTIC: Understand that you are not the recruiters’ only client. Schedule standing meetings no matter how short; just get them on the calendar. Recruiters understand your urgency however they have other clients asking for the same things. Work with your recruitment professional to set realistic goals that are effective and actionable.

Nineteen Eighty-four?

Posted by Joe Alonzo, Director of eDiscovery/Computer Forensics at the Glenmont Group

STOP reading this now if you think the Apple Macintosh computer, Norm from Cheers, Duran Duran, or Police Academy is mentioned in this blog.   (all very cool things IMO – well maybe not Duran Duran)

I recently read an article that was slightly disturbing; Big Brother came to mind when reading through this piece.  It described a few interview situations, one in particular where a candidate applied for a non-government job and was asked for his Facebook login and password during the interview process.  The candidate refused and withdrew his application stating he did not want to work for a company that would seek such personal information.

The article described another instance where a candidate was interviewing for a job in a correctional facility, again the candidate was asked for his Facebook password.  The reason given was that because this was a government position, and it was necessary to see if this person had any gang affiliations.  Although the candidate complied with their request, he felt this was intrusive to his privacy however he needed to feed his family. 

Some candidates do not have the luxury of saying no to such invasive acts of screening in job markets where the opportunities are not as prevalent as the legal technology space.

This statement from a career coach ties into an earlier blog of mine titled “Be careful what you say”…  E. Chandlee Bryan, a career coach and co-author of the book “The Twitter Job Search Guide,” said job seekers should always be aware of what’s on their social media sites and assume someone is going to look at it.

While I believe E. Chandlee Bryan’s idea to be true, especially when applying for new positions, the idea of looking closely at an applicant’s personal life is considered a huge invasion of privacy by many.   I do not expect this practice to gain popularity as time goes on.

Please comment!

Trading Places, Not Spaces

Posted by Geoff Zodda, Managing Director, IT Staffing Services at Glenmont Group

As a recruiter in such abstract industry as Legal Technology, we tend to think outside of the box on a number of areas, including how to source candidates, ways to improve our game, challenge ourselves and get that edge to beat out competition.

Most recruiters will attempt to stay sharp by attending seminars, reading the newest book on how to become the next Danny Cahill or utilize a free webinar (trust me, that won’t keep you sharp). The outside the box thinking that I will propose for all recruiters that want to stay sharp is the following; Why don’t you apply and attempt to get an interview or two with an organization that has always interested you? Now, you might not be interested in switching positions, or even be interested in entertaining this, but what better way is there to educate your candidates than by going on an interview yourself! You’ll get back that feeling of what it is like to be in your candidates shoes, back in the firing range – experiencing elements of an interview first hand. Not to mention, in order to best prepare candidates for interviews and the hiring process, we need be experts with this.

When Popular Does Not Equal Valuable

Posted by Susan Beck, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

Recently, there has been a surge in new stories about the theft of Tide. I heard the news just after I finished writing the word “detergent” on my shopping list for this week. Ironic, and pretty interesting. I heard a news story on the radio, saw the topic covered on the news and it was even brought up in conversation while at dinner with friends one night. It’s kind of amazing what a big splash a story like this makes.

If you have no idea what I am talking about, here is a link to a ABC News article, and a brief description:

Tide is going up in price and people are using this increase as a reason to steal products to sell on the black market. The reasoning: Like toothpaste and soap, detergent is a highly needed commodity. Tide, being a name brand, costs more and is valued higher than store-brand products. People are focusing more on the name brand detergent than these less-expensive detergents, as the same effort goes into stealing Tide as other bottles. In Minnesota, there was a man who was caught stealing $25K in Tide product over 15 months. In addition to that, in Maryland, there and a drug bust that turned up more Tide than cocaine. What is with this?

I listened intently to each version of the story (radio, news, hearsay, etc.) and thought it was very interesting that no one really noticed the glaring defect in the logic. Why do people insist on using name brand product with the store-brands are less expensive, just as good and, in many cases, made in America? (Yes, I am one of those citizens who prefers to buy American-made products over Internationally-made ones.) 100 ounces of Tide goes for $15 in the NY-Metro-Area as compared to 100 ounces of Shop Rite detergent costing $5.98. That’s $10 in savings right there! And trust me, Shop Rite brand detergent still leaves my clothes clean and smelling April Fresh.

This got me thinking. A lot of money goes into developing larger corporations, just like name brands, and they offer a number of great opportunities for employment. People tend to look at the high-profile Fortune 100 companies of the world and really push for the company name on their resume. Why is that? There are a number of lesser-known companies and organizations that offer just as good, if not better, opportunities for employment and growth. Large corporations know that people are beating down the doors just to get in – at times, this leads them to not to value their employees as much. Case and point: ESPN.com can (and has) fired online writers and editors for making simple typos or mistakes because they know they have a slew of people willing to take their spot. Smaller companies tend not to do things like this because they see there is more value in their staff members than the value of hiring and training another Joe Shmoe and acclimating this Joe into their environment.

Another perk of smaller organizations is that you wear a number of different hats. While you may, by title, be a sales person, you can also be a part of the marketing team, work on with the IT staff, assist the VP of the company with necessary company-wide changes, and mentor other staff members. This type of experience not only opens you up to being a more well-rounded person, but it can help you in your next career move. Many employers look more positively on a variety of experience and a willingness to do what it takes to get the job done than a company name.

Smaller companies can open more doors than larger corporations, depending on the position. The next time your friendly neighborhood recruiter gives you a ring and asks you to take a look at a great opportunity, don’t be so fast to turn it down.

Better than Expected

February Jobs Report: Source Bureau of Labor Statistics

Posted by Kate Potters, COO at Glenmont Group

The good news is that the jobs growth has momentum. The biggest increase is in the professional services area. We have seen that first hand in the past 6 months. Most encouraging to me is the number of our clients who are beginning to add to headcount, instead of simply replacing people who have left or retired. Something that cannot be measured is the optimism expressed by our clients and candidates in recent months. This confidence will no doubt translate to more hires in the coming months. For a more detailed analysis of the numbers, there’s a posting on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website that is both concise and informative.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Law Firm Candidates Vs Vendor Candidates

Posted by Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

As a project coordinator for the number one executive search firm in the eDiscovery space (the Glenmont Group), I have inside information as to what skills compose the ideal candidate for each of my clients’ current openings. This knowledge provides me with an overview of the market that none of my clients possess individually, yet each has made contributions to throughout the course of my career in the eDiscovery space.  One trend that has emerged after countless placements within the space is that law firms are more likely to hire candidates from other law firms, and that vendors are more likely to hire candidates that come from other vendors. These organizations are each less likely to hire from the other. In the past this concept has made perfect sense, but due to the changing paradigms that exist in today’s talent pool, it may make sense to reevaluate.

Let me take the opportunity to point out some common stereotypes about candidates on both the vendor and the law firm sides. Traditionally, law firm candidates have been perceived as “buttoned up” where vendor candidates have been perceived as more “tech-savvy.” This seems obvious since the vendors within our industry are developing the new technologies and implementing them before law firms can get them in house. On the other hand law firm candidates must work closely with lawyers in an environment that is largely influenced by any small change in the law or any “best practices and procedures,” and they often have JD’s or at least some formal legal training. The fact is however that as law firms and vendors are constantly working more closely together it is becoming increasingly useful to have a member of the other side on your team no matter which side you are on!

Law firms could use the more technologically inclined vendor candidates to help bring new technologies in house, and vendors could use more law firm candidates to help to better define their client’s needs. As many of my clients have begun to adopt this thinking, the unorthodox additions to their existing teams are becoming even more useful than one of their “own kind” ever would have been. I believe as the eDiscovery space continues to mature we will see a talent pool with a much more well-rounded skillset appealing to a wider range of employers. I have successfully placed both vendor candidates on the law firm side and law firm candidates on the vendor side, and have seen these relationships prove to be mutually beneficial on numerous occasions. Each day I challenge more of my clients to look outside the box in order to expand their existing candidate pool and welcome a slightly different (yet equally effective) skillset into their organization!

Law Firm Help Desk: To Outsource or Not To Outsource

Written by Geoff Zodda, Managing Director at Glenmont Group

The rapid evolution of legal technology over the last 10 years has forced partners and executives at law firms of all sizes to address organizational efficiency challenges. Tough decisions to insure stability, reputation, and sustainability both internally and in the industry abroad need to be taken. The Help Desk within Legal IT departments has long been the target of scrutiny during difficult financial periods, and in a recent informal survey, 25% of the AmLaw 200 Firms stated they have outsourced Help Desk functions. Some firms have outsourced their overnight and weekend shifts, while others have outsourced their whole support group. Besides considering the present and future financial impact of utilizing external resources for these functions, law firms also have to weigh any potential long-term effects it may have on the IT department.

Law firms considering the outsourcing model have to assess factors such as, “Will the outsourcing company have a sense of urgency on our behalf? Will they be dedicated to giving our attorneys and our users the best support possible? Are they going to be a customer advocate?” Not only are they taking into account the outsourcing organization’s overall commitment to service, but equally as important is determining if outsourcing reduces headcount while yielding a positive bottom line financially. Once their diligence has determined that the outsourcing company has the ability to support their needs in a timely manner, has a documented record of strong resolution percentage, will save the firm money, and can make the users feel comfortable with the team, the firm will most likely move forward with the outsourcing process. Barry Keno, CEO of the Legal IT consulting and outsourcing firm Keno Kozie Associates, states, “Help Desk is one of the aspects within IT that a firm can outsource successfully without compromising the integrity of their IT environment.”

There are two scenarios for firms evaluating the level of their need to outsource: Outsource Help Desk functions full time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, or simply outsource the after-hours work or overflow. Firms who commit to full time outsourcing make a serious statement about the volume of workflow compared to the cost of retaining in-house personnel to accommodate that work, as the firm is more or less exchanging a familiar group for an outside party, not knowing exactly who the users will be speaking with or working with as a daily resource. Most firms who are inclined to outsource, tend to hire a vendor to manage their overnight and overflow support, as there are a lot less calls from users during this time frame, and thus less risk to the firm.

Executives from three of the most successful outsourcing firms provided some insight into the prevailing reasons why firms choose to outsource their Help Desk, either full-time or after-hours. Lance Waagner, CEO of Intelliteach, Inc., states, “Firms are able to get more strategic with the rest of their IT if they outsource their Help Desk. [In fact] I originally wanted to outsource my after-hours desk as CIO of Kilpatrick Stockton in the 90’s.” Keno suggests, “Firms struggling with staffing stability, turnover within Help Desk, and do not have the depth of knowledge within the department, are the most likely candidates to outsource the whole group.” He continues, “If the vendor is doing a good job, it’s one less thing to worry about within your department, as it runs by itself.” Another benefit to engaging specialized outsourcing firms in this area is they have encountered practically every situation and have a response plan intact, plus, they know exactly what resources are needed, and how to properly run a Help Desk, all according to the firm’s size. Waagner agrees, saying, “We’ll provide Level 1, 2, and 3 [support] for our clients and put the proper number of resources and headcount for the firm’s group to be successful.” Greg Bartnicki, VP Client Services for Williams Lea, has clients who identify the health of the overall user experience as a major reason to outsource a department. He proposes, “You can transform your support group from good to great by outsourcing. Our solution is very structured – employing ITIL methodology, benchmarking to ensure continuous improvement, and leveraging an internal Williams Lea ‘Community of Practice’. Our goal is not only be efficient with our service delivery, but to continually engage the user and IT community, which enables us to tailor our going-forward strategy. This approach allows us to fully support complex needs of the users, and establish best-in-class IT support.

With these vendors doing a stellar job managing these relationships and generating such positive results, why wouldn’t all firms want to outsource their Help Desk groups? What assurances do law firms have that their needs are better served by a group of individuals whose performance and results are managed primarily by contractual obligation, rather than by a similar, firm-employed support staff with a truly vested interest in providing successful service and problem resolution? Anthony Figueroa, IT Support Manager for Littler Mendelson, P.C., points out, “Communication needs to be tremendous if you are going to think about outsourcing your help desk and make sure you are not just one of their many clients. More often than not, individuals working internally within help desk are more committed to the tasks at hand, understand the needs of the organization better, and the turn-around time is quicker.” Yolanda Muhammad, Support Manager for Olgetree Deakins, P.C. and its 40 national offices, furthers this sentiment purporting, “If your audience is the type that needs a lot of desktop support, requiring individuals to be hands-on and accessible at all times, you may not want to outsource. It all depends upon the law firm’s corporate culture and how mature they are in centralizing service management and utilizing ITIL standards.” Other law firms opposed to outsourcing have cited anticipated difficulties in transitioning a support group back to an in-house situation after being moved fully to an external organization. Of additional concern, with security and privacy being of the utmost importance for law firms, giving outside vendors access to internal and proprietary systems, even at the support level, poses a potentially significant risk to information integrity.