The History Book Club discussion

This is the thread to discuss globalization and the law. I place the thread here because Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States gave a presentation at the American Academy in Berlin on this subject which I am attaching here.

And there are many topics that do come before the Supreme Court that have tentacles which reach out to globalization issues.

About Justice Scalia - his biography on Fora TV:

Antonin Scalia

Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, New Jersey, March 11, 1936. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960-1961.

He was in private practice in Cleveland, Ohio from 1961-1967, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia from 1967-1971, and a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago from 1977-1982, and a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Stanford University.

He was chairman of the American Bar Association's Section of Administrative Law, 1981-1982, and its Conference of Section Chairmen, 1982-1983. He served the federal government as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy from 1971-1972, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972-1974, and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1974-1977.

He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.

The globalization discussion focused on the following areas:

* Defining globalization
* Comparing State and International Law
* State Law and Globalization
* The Need for Unified Laws
* The Dangers of International Law
* Beneficial Uses of International Law
* Examples of Undemocratic International Law
* The Need for Specificity
* The Growing Power of the Courts
* The UN, NATO and International Law
* The Supreme Court and Democracy
* The International Limitations of US Law
* German Resistance to EU Law
* National Obligations to the UN
* Establishing Human Rights in the Middle East
* The Challenges of Defining "Democracy"
* Democracy and European Integration
* Catholicism, Natural Law and Globalization
* The Ramifications of the Bush vs. Gore Decision
* Democracy and the WTO

Definition of globalization

Process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, is becoming standardized around the world. Factors that have contributed to globalization include increasingly sophisticated communications and transportation technologies and services, mass migration and the movement of peoples, a level of economic activity that has outgrown national markets through industrial combinations and commercial groupings that cross national frontiers, and international agreements that reduce the cost of doing business in foreign countries. Globalization offers huge potential profits to companies and nations but has been complicated by widely differing expectations, standards of living, cultures and values, and legal systems as well as unexpected global cause-and-effect linkages. See also free trade.

Source: Globalization on britannica.com

Location:

Lloyd Cutler Lecture
Berlin, Germany

Event Date:
09.22.09

Summary of Lecture:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia delivers a lecture on the clash between international and state law that is inherent in globalization. He explores historical precedents, and discusses the best and the worst ways of implementing international law.

Here is the link:

http://fora.tv/2009/09/22/Justice_Ant...

Source: Fora TV

It is sort of interesting listening to Scalia because he basically has stated that he considers the EU to be an example of undemocratic law.

There was also a quip early on about the Kyoto treaty (did not sound like he was for that either) not because he does not believe that the United States should not be working on global warming but because of the specificity or lack thereof of the language itself. At least that was the gist when he ran by that one. He does not like these treaties which are what he terms undemocratic.

He does agree to protocols and commissions where there is agreement by all the signatories to a specific code of conduct (which is democratic and specific).

He does not feel that international law is as faithful to democracy as state law.

He talks about capital punishment, freedom of speech, etc.

He believes in Natural law. There is indeed a right and wrong answer to many but not all questions of human rights. But there is nothing approaching universal agreement as to which questions are answered by natural law. No agreement as to what the answers might be. Moral questions should not be left to judges like human rights.

Scalia also believes the following:

State Law is in both theory and practice essential to any sort of globalization - commercial or cultural. An international law of one sort or another is also essential as a practical matter. Globalization is unlikely to occur in many areas without it. But a democratic society should be careful about the mode of international law it selects; by far the most desirable is a treaty dealing in great specificity with a particular subject; and by far the least desirable is a treaty expressing vague objectives whether economic or cultural and committed to the implementation by an international commission or international court.

I have to say that these sort of presentations show his razor sharp wit and repartee which can be painful I imagine if you are on the receiving end.

Stephen Breyer on Globalization and the Supreme Court

ABOUT STEPHEN BREYER
Stephen Gerald Breyer is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Appointed in 1994, Breyer is often regarded as more liberal than most other members of the court. He is highly regarded across the political spectrum for his pragmatic, rather than ideological, approach to the Constitution. In Bush v. Gore, which settled the controversial 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, he issued a widely respected dissent which criticized those who would decide the case on the basis of equal protection. Breyer, a Rhodes Scholar, was educated at Stanford, Oxford and Harvard. He is the author of Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation. Ideas recorded at the 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival on: 7/5/07

Here is the video:
http://bigthink.com/videos/stephen-br...

Transcript
Justice O’Connor and I were in India on 9/11. We had _______ there. We were meeting with their judicial . . . with judges of their Supreme Court. We arrived on that very day. On that very day. And of course the people there were horrified, and there was a tremendous outpouring of support, and people couldn’t have been nicer. And, but it was a time of thought for me. And really, it seemed to me . . . and I mention it because what was in our minds after a week there – we spent a week there – that the world is really divided into what I think of as the forces of reason and the forces of non-reason. And the forces of reason . . . well law is part of that. Law is part of it. Judges are part of it. Lawyers are part of it, and so is everybody else on . . . you know . . . other professions. The forces of non-reason, that’s the risk. That’s the danger. So I rather see that as something that’s unifying people across the world. Because people across the world do believe in democratic systems. They do believe in protecting basic human rights. They do believe in trying to create economies that will make their people prosperous. And they believe to a considerable degree in international settlement disputes. Things like that, too. But there are forces that they have to fight against which are obvious. So that’s in my mind. Maybe that’s how I was brought up, too. That was after World War II _______ cooperation. But as you look out today, and also I’d say my experience tells me that in a way, it’s like this . . . somebody weaving a loom. I mean I’m not a political figure. I’m not in politics. And I don’t . . . and people who do . . . are in politics and in very high levels in government may see these international institutions and global politics going on at a very high level. But I say to the lawyers and judges who are technical people, who are professionals, and at our level, whatever happens at the other, there’s a kind of knitting going on. It’s like workers at a loom. It’s happening in Europe. It’s happening in Africa. It’s happening in Asia. People are learning from each other, particularly in law. How does it happen? It happens in conferences. People talk to each other. Judges talk to each other. Lawyers talk to each other. It happens as different groups try to create laws. For example in Europe, they’re trying to create commercial laws, and bankruptcy laws, and tax laws, and laws that will govern several what were independent . . . . they are independent nations, but they’re trying to get together. And this is happening at the World Trade Organization. It’s happening across the world. It’s popularly called “globalization”. But what it involves are people in business, people in law, learning what each other are doing. And they adjust their laws accordingly. It doesn’t always have to be formal. We used to have a group called the Uniform Law Commissioners. And they’d go from state to state, and they’d say, “California does this.” And they’d go to Iowa, and they’d say, “Iowa, you know California does this. Maybe you should try it.” And that kind of thing goes on every minute as we speak. And then there are different organizations developing like the World Trade Organization. There are dozens of them. And there are free trade areas. There are health organizations. There are communications organizations. There’s the Internet. There are all these things we know about. They are all forces working to bring us together. So what I see as happening – and it’s not a political matter – what I see as happening is people who are lawyers and judges in America today have to be aware. And they have to have a system of being aware about what’s going on elsewhere. Because the cases in front of them will more and more depend on what’s happening elsewhere. Recorded on: 7/5/2007 at The Aspen Ideas Festival

Discussion:

What forces have shaped humanity the most?

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-force...

Transcript

Eventually people will get, I suppose, population under control. But there is a large and growing number of people. They all have to be fed. They all have to be housed. They have to learn. They’re all gonna have families, we hope. They’re all going to have lives. Each one of them is an individual life. And as you have more and more, the great positive thing is people . . . they’re . . . it’s religion, if you like; but people have within them the capacity for great good and for terrible things. And societies come together, churches come together, philosophers come together, people come together with sets of behaviors which we try to teach children so that they’ll get those bad instincts under control. And so we’ll bring out the good ones. And if you’re gonna bring out the good ones, people are capable of marvelous things. I mean just tremendous organization. So that’s why I thought India was so interesting, because I thought, “My goodness. It’s like a microcosm.” And here we have the points of light, and the dangers of darkness. And of course we all know now we can destroy the whole planet. It’s possible. It’s possible. And yet we’re working . . . and that’s why I’m so enthusiastic about these different organizations – whether they’re local, or whether they’re national, or whether they’re international – that are trying to knit things together, that are trying to create structures. So when future people are born in the world, they will have structures within which they can work to try to use their good instincts, their capacities, their abilities, to create worlds that are better. And if you contrast this century with the 19th, in the 19th they were certain that it was progress; but we’ve lived through – I have – this terrible, terrible 20th Century. And now people are not at all certain whether the forces of progress, whether the good within people is so good that it can overcome these tremendous problems. But we’re working on it. So I’m an optimist, and most people are. We work on it. We do our best. Recorded on: 7/5/2007

How Do You Interpret the Law?

http://bigthink.com/videos/how-do-you...

Transcript
Stephen Breyer: You know the thing that impressed me most ever written about judges interpreting text was a statement by Learned Hand, who is maybe the greatest judge ever had in the United States – certainly one of the few. And he said, “Interpreting a text is like a . . . it’s tough. It’s a difficult decision.” He said, “It’s closer to a performer interpreting a musical score.” You want to be true to that score. You want to be true to the intent of the composer who wrote the music. And there isn’t a magic formula. There’s not a magic formula that will tell you how to do it. And I would be amazed if I could give you a formula about how to use consequences in every case. Well I think if you put it more tritely, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I write down what I think. And if people read it, they will see what the reasoning is. And they can criticize it and I might learn from that. But there is not a magic answer. You know I’m probably . . . since I recently wrote a dissent in a case involving the use of race-conscious criteria in the schools . . . whether the city of Seattle could use . . . As one criteria among several, they allowed high school students freedom to choose whatever school they wanted. They listed preferences. But they said no school could be more than 85% white. Basically that was their criteria. And the question was, “Could they actually overtly, in that way, use a racial criteria?” And the court, 5 to 4, decided that they could not. They could not. I dissented. I thought, “Of course they can’t.” Were consequences relevant there? They certainly were to me. Because I said, “If you interpret the equal protection clause to forbid this, how are people supposed to deal with problems of race and poverty in inner cities of America?” And I see the Constitution as a very workable document. I think Madison’s genius was to say we’re going to get these values. We stay the same. And we’re gonna embody them in words that allow their application over the course of the next 400, 500 years, if not longer. And to do that, you have to refer back to how do these values apply today? What’s the value of the equal protection clause? Trying to bring us together; trying to create one nation; trying to create races that were separate . . . a caste system; and try to create one country out of this diversity. And it’s a miracle, but we’ve been able to do that to a degree. There’s still plenty of problems. And for me to think of that clause being posed as an obstacle to such an effort, I just think that that was wrong. And I expressed by view very concisely in about 77 pages.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Making Your Dissent Heard

http://bigthink.com/videos/making-you...

Transcript
Stephen Breyer: Well it’s always been true that usually once or twice a year, someone . . . someone will read a dissent from the bench. And it’s typically a dissent in a case that we think has some importance, and that we think . . . the dissenters usually think is very wrongly decided. The normal attitude when you write a dissent is “how right I am”. I mean that’s human nature. But there have been more than usual. And I think what the dissenters have been saying in their dissents is we think there are quite a few decisions with which we strongly disagree.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Stephen Breyer

What is the way forward in the Middle East?

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-th...

I heard Shimon Peres say something interesting, I thought, because people are so pessimistic about the Middle East. And he said something more optimistic. He said, “It’s like going forward with throwbacks.” It’s . . . there are obstacles. And you hope you’ll surmount them and you might. There were . . . right now you’re involved in the Internet. Well my goodness. That could be a terrible thing. It could be a force that isolates people. They don’t have human contact anymore. Everything is . . . Or, it could be a force that brings them together. And in fact, when you see people in . . . probably in the Middle East, he said, “Once they start to see what’s possible elsewhere in the world, and what they can achieve through cooperation in a modern world . . .” Modern has a lot of bad about it, but it has a lot of good. And whether it’s good or bad, we’re in it. And once they see what is possible to accomplish through education, through savings, through trying to improve their economic life, through getting together . . . once they see that, they’ll begin more to understand it, and that will be a tremendous civilizing force. And by “civilizing force”, I mean the force that really keeps out these incredible fanatics. And so what we’ve seen in the last 10

Stephen Breyer

Does Public Opinion Influence the Decision-Making of a Judge?

Transcript
Stephen Breyer: No. I mean only vary rarely would that actually matter. And it can’t really influence your judgment in terms of consequences directly on the court – what will the press say? Will they say you’re good or bad? Will they see this is terrible or wonderful – you just cannot let it because that is the road to perdition? We’re not there to be popular. We’re not there to decide according to the majority. We’re not there to decide according to what the press is going to write. If you were to take that view of the job, why take it? The point of this job is to do your best as a judge. It is a judicial job. It is a job where you’re trying to apply as best you can to apply the law in different circumstances. And the cases in front of us – 80 a year – sounds like a few, but each of them is really difficult because they are cases in respect to which lower courts have continuously disagreed. Years ago in the 1830s, there was a case involving the Cherokee Indians and Georgia. And they were . . . Their land bill was discovered, and the Georgians seized their land. They hired a lawyer, William Worth – a great lawyer in that time – and he brought a case to the Supreme Court. And he won eventually. He won. The court said the land belongs to the Indians. It doesn’t belong to the Georgians. And the President, Jackson, said – supposedly said – John Marks has made his decision and we must enforce it. And he wouldn’t enforce that decision. Indeed he sent troops there eventually. Those troops evicted the Indians. Well John Joseph’s story and John Marshall had a correspondence that year. And it was a dark year for the court. And they wondered, in writing, what will happen to this court. And John Marshall said something that’s famous. He said, “Well the people made the Constitution, and they can unmake it.” So ultimately we’re floating on a sea of public opinion. And that public opinion does not have to agree with our decisions, but they do have to follow them.

And indeed we’ve seen over the course of history. I often use as an example Little Rock, where a different president – Eisenhower – sent troops. And Governor ______ stood in the door and said, “I will not . . . I will not let those black children in this white school.”

And Eisenhower said, “We’re sending the Airborne.” The 101st Airborne Division went to Little Rock, and they took the children by the hand and they walked them right into the school. That was a great day for the law, for the country. And today people do tend to follow the opinions . . . They understand, at some level, that 300 million people of every possible race, religion and point of view to live together, they have to have a way of resolving their problems, and they turn to the law. Now there’s no guarantee that will continue. The court is working at it, but it is an incredible asset, a treasure to the country. And I see it every day. I see it every day.

I understand that the court has to maintain standing in public opinion; but the way to do that is not for me to base my decisions on public opinion. Out of the question.

The way for me to do it is to do just what I’m doing now. It’s to do my best to explain to people what the court’s about. And to hope I’ll interest them enough, so that they – whether they’re high school students, or college students, or grammar school students, they say, “Well maybe we ought to know something about this. Maybe we should find out. Maybe we ought to know about our government. Maybe even participating in government or participating in the community is a good thing for us.” And if they think about that, then I’ve done what I can in that respect.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Supreme Court and International Law

Mr. Clement spoke about a number of issues of international law. He talked about his experiences learning about international law, and asserted that this area is often overlooked in law schools. He talked about changing attitudes on international law and the U.S. Supreme Court. He noted that many commentators have asserted that the Court has become more “globalized or internationalized.” Mr. Clement, however, asserted that the Supreme Court “remains focused on the domestic law of the U.S.” Following his remarks he responded to audience questions.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?183908-1...

Source: C-Span

Youth, Globalization, and the Law

by Sudhir Venkatesh

Synopsis:

This book addresses the impact of globalization on the lives of youth, focusing on the role of legal institutions and discourses. As practices and ideas travel the globe—such as the promotion and transmission of zero tolerance and retributive justice programs, the near ubiquitous acceptance of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the transnational migration of street gangs—the legal arena is being transformed.

The essays in this book offer case studies and in-depth analyses, spanning diverse settings including courts and prisons, inner-city streets, international human rights initiatives, newspaper offices, local youth organizations, and the United Nations. Drawing on everyday social practices, each chapter adds clarity to our current understanding of the ways in which ideas and practices in different parts of the world can affect youth in one particular locale.

Making People Illegal: What Globalization Means for Migration and Law

by Catherine Dauvergne (no photo)

Synopsis:

This book examines the relationship between illegal migration and globalization. Under the pressures of globalizing forces, migration law is transformed into the last bastion of sovereignty. This explains the worldwide crackdown on extra-legal migration and informs the shape this crackdown is taking. It also means that migration law reflects key facets of globalization and addresses the central debates of globalization theory. This book looks at various migration law settings, asserting that differing but related globalization effects are discernable at each location. The core samples interrogated in the book are drawn from refugee law, illegal labor migration, human trafficking, security issues in migration law, and citizenship law. Special attention is paid to the roles played by the European Union and the United States in setting the terms of global engagement. The book s conclusion considers what the rule of law contributes to transformed migration law."

Good adds Francie - thank you

You're welcome.

The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities

by Stephen G. Breyer

Synopsis:

In this original, far-reaching, and timely book, Justice Stephen Breyer examines the work of the Supreme Court of the United States in an increasingly interconnected world, a world in which all sorts of activity, both public and private—from the conduct of national security policy to the conduct of international trade—obliges the Court to understand and consider circumstances beyond America’s borders.

It is a world of instant communications, lightning-fast commerce, and shared problems (like public health threats and environmental degradation), and it is one in which the lives of Americans are routinely linked ever more pervasively to those of people in foreign lands. Indeed, at a moment when anyone may engage in direct transactions internationally for services previously bought and sold only locally (lodging, for instance, through online sites), it has become clear that, even in ordinary matters, judicial awareness can no longer stop at the water’s edge. 
 
To trace how foreign considerations have come to inform the thinking of the Court, Justice Breyer begins with that area of the law in which they have always figured prominently: national security in its constitutional dimension—how should the Court balance this imperative with others, chiefly the protection of basic liberties, in its review of presidential and congressional actions? He goes on to show that as the world has grown steadily “smaller,” the Court’s horizons have inevitably expanded: it has been obliged to consider a great many more matters that now cross borders. What is the geographical reach of an American statute concerning, say, securities fraud, antitrust violations, or copyright protections? And in deciding such matters, can the Court interpret American laws so that they might work more efficiently with similar laws in other nations?

While Americans must necessarily determine their own laws through democratic process, increasingly, the smooth operation of American law—and, by extension, the advancement of American interests and values—depends on its working in harmony with that of other jurisdictions. Justice Breyer describes how the aim of cultivating such harmony, as well as the expansion of the rule of law overall, with its attendant benefits, has drawn American jurists into the relatively new role of “constitutional diplomats,” a little remarked but increasingly important job for them in this fast-changing world.

Written with unique authority and perspective, The Court and the World reveals an emergent reality few Americans observe directly but one that affects the life of every one of us. Here is an invaluable understanding for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

The Globalization of International Law

by Paul Schiff Berman (no photo)

Synopsis:

'International law' is no longer a sufficient rubric to describe the complexities of law in an era of globalization. Accordingly, this collection situates cross-border norm development at the intersection of interdisciplinary scholarship on comparative law, conflict of laws, civil procedure, cyberlaw, legal pluralism and the cultural analysis of law, as well as traditional international law. It provides a broad range of seminal articles on transnational law-making, governmental and non-governmental networks, judicial influence and cooperation across borders, the dialectical relationships among national, international and non-state legal norms, and the possibilities of 'bottom-up' and plural law-making processes. The introduction situates these articles within the framework of law and globalization and suggests four important ways in which such a framework enlarges the traditional focus of international law. This book, therefore, provides a crucial reference for scholars and practitioners seeking to understand the varied processes of norm development in the emerging global legal order.

Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy

by Victor V. Ramraj (no photo)

Synopsis:

Preventing acts of terrorism remains one of the major tasks of domestic governments and regional and international organisations. Terrorism transcends borders, so anti-terrorism law must cross the boundaries of domestic, regional and international law. It also crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries between administrative, constitutional, criminal, financial, immigration, international and military law, as well as the law of war. This second edition provides a comprehensive resource on how domestic, regional and international responses to terrorism have developed since 2001. Chapters that focus on a particular country or region in the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia are complemented by overarching thematic chapters that take a comparative approach to particular aspects of anti-terrorism law and policy.

Thank you Lorna for both adds

Globalization’s effect on the Legal Industry

By JL2977 February 13, 2018



We live in the age of globalization and free market economics. Globalization refers to the integration of economic activities across borders. Technological and intellectual innovation has been the driving force behind globalization. It has reduced the cost of transportation and communication, thereby propelling profitable economic activity over large distances. The process of globalization has impacted every sphere of life in modern society and the legal arena is no exception.

Globalization has been an inherent part of the human journey. Humankind’s ability to navigate the seas has facilitated the birth of global empires, movement of people and expansion in commerce since ages, and the industrial revolution has only accelerated the process. While the steam locomotive, steamship and telegraph drove the globalization of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the jet aircraft, internet and mobile phones are fuelling the globalization of today.

Globalization impacts the legal field in manifold ways. It boosts international trade and commerce by facilitating the easy movement of capital, labor, goods and services across national borders, thus driving economic growth and the need for trained legal professionals.

Globalization demands a new kind of legal practitioner. The new-age lawyer, whether they be a corporate lawyer or criminal defense attorney, should be an industry expert or an authority on the law as specialized domains such as project finance, M&As and arbitrations are more industry-specific and less about local regulations. Industry experts are increasingly driving transactions and reducing the local, non-specialist lawyers to supporting and advisory roles. The legal professionals who work for global clients must be able to conduct themselves in a foreign language and be well-versed with international norms and usages as the interface lawyers that were found in foreign desks of international law firms have become a relic of the past.

Globalization is changing the dynamics of the legal business. A decade ago, global law firms setting up shop in a new area would only take on the international work of local companies. But today, the same global firms are competing with domestic law firms for local work as the local firms are unable to contest on equal terms. As a result, the neighborhood law firms are gradually losing ground to their global counterparts.

Globalization is re-writing client expectations. Today’s clients are more demanding than their predecessors, compelling law firms to rethink their conventional ways of functioning. Technology is having a dramatic impact on the legal industry. Knowledge management systems are improving client interactions and reducing costs, and social media is reshaping client relationships. As a result of these innovations, the balance of power is shifting into the hands of clients. Globalization has resulted in the adoption of global norms in professional liability, ethics and non-discrimination policies. Legal firms are increasingly attuning themselves to global practices to meet the requirements of worldwide clients and remain relevant in the global marketplace.

Legal firms are taking the globalization route by merging with larger counterparts, making acquisitions and entering into strategic alliances. This spurt in globalization is being driven by the internet boom, automation of legal processes and new technology tools. Globalization will continue to reshape the landscape of the legal industry in the coming years as law firms seek to expand their footprints worldwide.

Globalization is reshaping the demand for legal services in the emerging economies of India, China and Brazil. The gradual liberalization of these economies since the 1990s has led to major foreign investment and privatization, and unleashed competitive market forces like never before. The frenzied economic activity has spurred the demand for new laws and legal institutions such as investment and securities laws, trade and competition authorities, and the need for new lawyers. These economies have thus given birth to a corporate legal sector consisting of large law firms and sophisticated in-house legal departments.

The workforce is becoming multi-generational in an increasingly globalized world. Four generations, consisting of traditionalists, baby boomers, Generation X and Generation Y, are rubbing shoulders at the workplace, as legal professionals work beyond their retirement age. The legal firms have to harness the energies of this diverse workforce to achieve the common good of the organization.

Virtual law firms are becoming the norm of the day. Mobile devices and web technology are making it possible for legal professionals to work remotely from home or a virtual law office. Virtual law offices allow flexible working hours and foster a better work-life balance among the legal professionals. Moreover, thanks to the power of the virtual world, the clients are able to avail expert legal services from any part of the world.

The Legal Process Outsourcing sector (LPO) is another manifestation of globalization in the legal arena. The 1990s witnessed the phenomenon of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), wherein businesses outsourced backroom accounting and IT functions to BPO companies. LPO is business process outsourcing in which large legal firms establish offshore operations in low-cost locations in order to minimize costs, increase flexibility and expand capabilities.

There is a growing trend towards specialized boutique firms focused on a specific area of law such as international law, intellectual property, patents and family laws, to cater to the demands of the global marketplace. Legal firms are establishing themselves as niche experts in their geographic locations.

Globalization has changed the rules of the game, making it incumbent for the legal industry to introspect on where it is today and where it is headed, and prepare itself for an increasingly inter-connected world. The legal systems in various countries have to learn from each other to bring about the necessary institutional changes and evolution of laws.

Link to article: https://campuspress.yale.edu/tribune/...

More:

by Stephen G. Breyer

Source: The Yale Tribune