Problem: This 350 attorney, AmLaw 200 firm based in Ohio had decided to outsource their in-sourced back-office operations and multi-function devices (MFDs) on a firm-wide basis five years prior. The contract was expiring and the firm was now considering outsourcing the on-site centralized Records and Information Management functions. As a result, the firm was interested in what other outsourcing companies’ capabilities were in the records space,
Problem: This 250 attorney, AmLaw 200, Washington D.C.-based firm had specific areas in which it was struggling; in particular, they were finding it difficult to keep current with technology, flexing to meet demand, and recovering costs for the internal systems and storage related to litigation support services (e-Discovery).
The firm had many legacy databases on the firm’s infrastructure,
Problem: This AmLaw 200, Chicago-based firm had taken advantage of outsourcing methods over the last couple of years; however, its current outsourcing and equipment contract was soon to expire. Since the firm renewed with the incumbent vendor the previous five years, they were interested in learning what other service bureaus were providing in the outsourcing marketplace.
Problem: This 320 attorney, AmLaw 200, Houston-based firm was in the throes of implementing a “work-cell” environment for their secretaries per practice area. The restructuring of staff and office layout required a different output strategy to be deployed in order to provide the tools and technology within close proximity to the work-cells, while also looking to reduce expenses.
As we enter the final weeks of summer, that can mean only one thing – it is time for the National ILTACON technology conference in a very hot location. This year’s conference at the Gaylord in the Washington D.C. area promises to send attendees scurrying for the “cool” technology of indoor air conditioning.
As law firms continue to strive to do more with less,