This is just really sad.

I was an associate in big law and did document review in the 90s related to antitrust reviews. We brought in contract attorneys that were often great and I had a close friend that was hired as an associate. It was unusual even then, but it was not the resume killer that it is today. And people definitely were not treated like crap as described here. I have been in the government for 20 plus years so was at the early stages of but missed the technical revolution of doc review.

So many firms/lawyers are just so screwed up.

Anonymous wrote:Non-lawyer here. Why does doc review require a lawyer to do it? And why is the pay so poor (even before the bust seemed pretty modest)

Also, what does a typical doc review assignment consist of?

I only ask because I see this topic come up quite a bit on dcum and I suspect a lot of non lawyers aren’t familiar with it.

Some doc review projects only require you have a JD and not be licensed but most require you to be a licensed attorney. State bars get more money if they say doc review is practicing law because all the doc reviewers have to ay bar dues. Pat is poor because there are so many people with law degrees that can’t get work. As the field automates more the rates will go down further

Non-lawyer here. Why does doc review require a lawyer to do it? And why is the pay so poor (even before the bust seemed pretty modest)

Also, what does a typical doc review assignment consist of?

I only ask because I see this topic come up quite a bit on dcum and I suspect a lot of non lawyers aren’t familiar with it.

There are also little humiliations even if you are directly employed as a doc reviewer. Even legal assistants get cubicles and you get a bench table or at best a cubicle with the least amount of privacy possible, you are the only people atvthe firm treated that way

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right now it’s paying around $30 per hour.

This is what I was paid in 2001 for doc review! Good god. The pay hasn’t gone up in 18 years.

sometimes it will pay $33 up to 35 but any OT would not be at 1.5. So yes with inflation doc review pays a lot less than it did when I started in 2003 but I think I made maybe 28 hr typically. That’s still better than 30 today

The pay has definitely gone down from the golden years of document review. it's also a lot harder to get OT--which was where the money was at for a doc reviewer. BUT, my firm hires doc reviewers directly and they get paid $35 straight. If they can get on a longer term project, that's not terrible money and they get a ton of flexibility in terms of scheduling etc.

when you hire people does your firm Do references checks for doc reviewers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right now it’s paying around $30 per hour.

This is what I was paid in 2001 for doc review! Good god. The pay hasn’t gone up in 18 years.

sometimes it will pay $33 up to 35 but any OT would not be at 1.5. So yes with inflation doc review pays a lot less than it did when I started in 2003 but I think I made maybe 28 hr typically. That’s still better than 30 today

The pay has definitely gone down from the golden years of document review. it's also a lot harder to get OT--which was where the money was at for a doc reviewer. BUT, my firm hires doc reviewers directly and they get paid $35 straight. If they can get on a longer term project, that's not terrible money and they get a ton of flexibility in terms of scheduling etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right now it’s paying around $30 per hour.

This is what I was paid in 2001 for doc review! Good god. The pay hasn’t gone up in 18 years.

sometimes it will pay $33 up to 35 but any OT would not be at 1.5. So yes with inflation doc review pays a lot less than it did when I started in 2003 but I think I made maybe 28 hr typically. That’s still better than 30 today

Anonymous wrote:Right now it’s paying around $30 per hour.

This is what I was paid in 2001 for doc review! Good god. The pay hasn’t gone up in 18 years.

My knowledge on this is pretty old now - but at one point there were opportunities to do interesting work on the tech or development side of doc review. But that's not temp work - that's getting more involved in the industry as a whole.

Others sound pretty grim here. I did doc review for a few weeks between jobs once and it was nice to get the paycheck (but really really boring work). I left BigLaw early in my career so wasn't thinking about whether I'd ever go back to that. Hasn't hurt my career prospects in any way, I don't think.

If you need or want the $$, or are just curious, hard to see how this hurts someone with your background and ambitions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doc review is not "keeping your hand in the pot." It's a career killer. I would only do it if you never plan on going back to a real legal job one day.

-Doc reviewer of over 10 yrs

Normally I would agree with this. But if OP isn't working at all now, I don't think the doc review jobs would hurt her future career prospects. She doesn't even have to put them on her resume. Not doing so would negate some of the benefits of 'keeping your hand in the pot' (which I agree with you isn't really what doc review would be), but she would at least be making some money.

I'd look at the income as more valuable than any aspects of keeping your hand in the game.

I don't see how you can avoid putting it on your resume. You will have to list the cases you worked on while a doc reviewer during the conflict check so it will come up.

This is what kills the doc reviewer career. Listing your cases conflucts you out of a lot of places. BigLaw firms hold orientations for doc review to make it 100% clear that you are not to list their prestigious firm on your resume. That means your resume is loaded with all the doc review companies no one cares about.

Unless you were employed by the firm why would you list it on your resume? You put your temp agency on your resume

To look good and have a shot at decent, permanent employment. Why else?

Well, I could put a SCOTUS clerkship on my resume to try to look good, but it doesn't make it any more accurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doc review is not "keeping your hand in the pot." It's a career killer. I would only do it if you never plan on going back to a real legal job one day.

-Doc reviewer of over 10 yrs

Normally I would agree with this. But if OP isn't working at all now, I don't think the doc review jobs would hurt her future career prospects. She doesn't even have to put them on her resume. Not doing so would negate some of the benefits of 'keeping your hand in the pot' (which I agree with you isn't really what doc review would be), but she would at least be making some money.

I'd look at the income as more valuable than any aspects of keeping your hand in the game.

I don't see how you can avoid putting it on your resume. You will have to list the cases you worked on while a doc reviewer during the conflict check so it will come up.

This is what kills the doc reviewer career. Listing your cases conflucts you out of a lot of places. BigLaw firms hold orientations for doc review to make it 100% clear that you are not to list their prestigious firm on your resume. That means your resume is loaded with all the doc review companies no one cares about.

Unless you were employed by the firm why would you list it on your resume? You put your temp agency on your resume

To look good and have a shot at decent, permanent employment. Why else?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doc review is not "keeping your hand in the pot." It's a career killer. I would only do it if you never plan on going back to a real legal job one day.

-Doc reviewer of over 10 yrs

Normally I would agree with this. But if OP isn't working at all now, I don't think the doc review jobs would hurt her future career prospects. She doesn't even have to put them on her resume. Not doing so would negate some of the benefits of 'keeping your hand in the pot' (which I agree with you isn't really what doc review would be), but she would at least be making some money.

I'd look at the income as more valuable than any aspects of keeping your hand in the game.

I don't see how you can avoid putting it on your resume. You will have to list the cases you worked on while a doc reviewer during the conflict check so it will come up.

This is what kills the doc reviewer career. Listing your cases conflucts you out of a lot of places. BigLaw firms hold orientations for doc review to make it 100% clear that you are not to list their prestigious firm on your resume. That means your resume is loaded with all the doc review companies no one cares about.

Unless you were employed by the firm why would you list it on your resume? You put your temp agency on your resume

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doc review is not "keeping your hand in the pot." It's a career killer. I would only do it if you never plan on going back to a real legal job one day.

-Doc reviewer of over 10 yrs

Normally I would agree with this. But if OP isn't working at all now, I don't think the doc review jobs would hurt her future career prospects. She doesn't even have to put them on her resume. Not doing so would negate some of the benefits of 'keeping your hand in the pot' (which I agree with you isn't really what doc review would be), but she would at least be making some money.

I'd look at the income as more valuable than any aspects of keeping your hand in the game.

I don't see how you can avoid putting it on your resume. You will have to list the cases you worked on while a doc reviewer during the conflict check so it will come up.

This is what kills the doc reviewer career. Listing your cases conflucts you out of a lot of places. BigLaw firms hold orientations for doc review to make it 100% clear that you are not to list their prestigious firm on your resume. That means your resume is loaded with all the doc review companies no one cares about.

How is it different from having to list all your cases as a paralegal, lit support analyst or associate? Is it also difficult to move to another firm from those positions after working on hundreds of cases? Asking for a friend

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doc review is not "keeping your hand in the pot." It's a career killer. I would only do it if you never plan on going back to a real legal job one day.

-Doc reviewer of over 10 yrs

Normally I would agree with this. But if OP isn't working at all now, I don't think the doc review jobs would hurt her future career prospects. She doesn't even have to put them on her resume. Not doing so would negate some of the benefits of 'keeping your hand in the pot' (which I agree with you isn't really what doc review would be), but she would at least be making some money.

I'd look at the income as more valuable than any aspects of keeping your hand in the game.

I don't see how you can avoid putting it on your resume. You will have to list the cases you worked on while a doc reviewer during the conflict check so it will come up.

This is what kills the doc reviewer career. Listing your cases conflucts you out of a lot of places. BigLaw firms hold orientations for doc review to make it 100% clear that you are not to list their prestigious firm on your resume. That means your resume is loaded with all the doc review companies no one cares about.