Another data point in a long string of not-good developments for Temp Town

I've talked about computer-assisted review and predictive coding here and here. Probably elsewhere, too, but I'm lazy. Anyway, it's not good for the future of temps. Likewise, using attorneys in India and the Philippines, among other places, or even just lower-cost states like North Carolina, Ohio and West Virginia, also cannot be good news for DC-based temps. The proliferation of short, 40-hour projects is a direct result of the cost-cutting trends that birthed these developments. Now we're seeing other indications that the future is here, and it sucks, as shown by this post at the Temp Town job listserve The Posse List:

[An agency I work for from time to time] is staffing a JD document review looking to start 5/28/13. Please see the details below: 
*Only a JD required. The client has indicated candidates do not need barred or bar pending *Start date: 5/28/13 *Pay rate: $24/hr plus 1.5 for OT *Hours: 40/hrs week *Duration: 2 weeks 

Short, no OT and no bar required, and so shitty pay as a result -- as in a 20 percent cut from the more or less standard rate.   We've seen the occasional JD-only  project before, so this isn't a totally new development. I will be watching to see if it becomes more of a trend, however.  On the one hand, there is a June 2005 advisory opinion by the DC Court of Appeals Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law that says “when a person is hired and billed as a lawyer . . . . When a client is paying for the services of a lawyer, and not a paralegal or law clerk, the person providing the services and the person’s employer must comply" with local rules requiring DC Bar membership for the practice of law in the District. (Sorry, no link -- I mentioned I'm lazy, right?) On the other hand, it's just an advisory opinion and won't stop clients from eyeballing that nice little 20 percent savings on labor. The Posse List post says straight up the client made the JD-only call. Think more of them won't? I won't bet against it.

How's that exit strategy coming?

Too good to last

I've spoken previously about the project-crushing development known variously as technology-assisted review, computer assisted review or predictive coding. I have previously been part of projects that were brought to a conclusion in short order was TAR was put to use. I think it often doesn't work particularly well -- it depends on who sets up the parameters for the software to base decisions on. Garbage in, garbage out. But it sure as shit works fast. It can turn a 4-6 week project into 2 weeks. Not a temp attorney's friend.

Well, TAR has come to my project. Up until now, official estimates have been that the project likely would last at least until the first of the year, and probably beyond. Oddly enough, there are no new estimates on project lifespan. When they announced today that they were going to be introducing what they're calling "computer-assisted review," the project managers were quick to say "No one is losing their job." Which brings us to Rule No. 1, of course: they're lying. Or maybe they're just playing semantics: after all, it isn't "no one" losing a job, it's "everyone." But that's why you front-end load the overtime every week of every project with overtime, because of Rule No. 3 (or so): Every project ends tomorrow. This one isn't ending tomorrow, but there are some folks in the room today who have already been on this project more than a year who had forgotten all about Rule No. 2. Not sure when "tomorrow" comes for this project, but it will come a lot sooner now.