On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Outsourcing 2018: ITO, BPO and Cloud

Released on: Nov. 9, 2018
Running Time: 11:13:54

Managing a global business today virtually necessitates contracting with outside technology partners to manage various aspects of non-essential and even some core business functions.  As ITO, BPO and cloud solutions reach broad adoption across industries, new entrants to the market continue to emerge, offering cheaper and faster alternatives to industry stalwarts. 

A maturing market for technology outsourcing solutions may offer clients the chance to achieve greater efficiencies, but how does that impact current agreements with existing vendors?  As lawyers, how do you design agreements to anticipate this possibility?  How do evolving privacy regulatory regimes influence your contracts?  As a vendor, what client concerns should you anticipate with respect to emerging technology, increased competition and heightened privacy and data security expectations?  What ethical obligations do lawyers on both sides need to keep top of mind throughout the negotiation process? 

These are important questions that attorneys operating in this evolving practice must anticipate, regardless of which side of the transaction they stand behind.  This timely and authoritative program will share practical insights on some of these questions and raise new issues that practitioners in the field should know. 

Lecture Topics [Total time 11:13:54]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:04:47]
    John F. Delaney, William A. Tanenbaum
  • Outsourcing – Getting Deals Done in a Rapidly Changing World [01:03:12]
    Brad L. Peterson
  • Outsourcing – The Anatomy of a Master Services Agreement [01:02:03]
    John F. Delaney
  • Global Sourcing: Then and Now – Potential Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [01:00:54]
    Michael S. Mensik, Bradley Slattery, Philip Borders, Mihaela Craciun, Sushant Mehta
  • Case Study: Global Outsourcing in a Digital World [01:02:06]
    Peter R. George, David M. Ross
  • Supplier Perspectives: Strategies for Success [00:55:57]
    George Kimball
  • Blockchain – The Future of Outsourcing [01:02:56]
    John F. Delaney, Joshua Ashley Klayman, Shawnna M. Hoffman-Childress
  • Health Care – A New Frontier in Outsourcing [01:02:49]
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • Privacy and Data Security Issues in Outsourcing [00:58:24]
    Lei Shen
  • Intellectual Property Issues in Outsourcing [00:59:55]
    Barbara Murphy Melby
  • Pricing and Financial Structures in Outsourcing [01:01:10]
    Robert M. Finkel, Douglas Plotkin
  • Ethics Issues in Negotiating Sourcing Deals [00:59:41]
    Janis M. Meyer

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • The Outsourcing Process
    Brad L. Peterson
  • Anatomy of a Master Services Agreement
    John F. Delaney
  • How the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Will Impact Outsourcing
    Brad L. Peterson
  • Case Study—Global Cloud Migration for the Extended Enterprise
    Adam Aft, David M. Ross, Dennis Penepacker, Peter R. George
  • Supplier Perspectives—Strategies for Success
    George Kimball
  • What Is Blockchain?
    John F. Delaney
  • Your Money or Your Patients: Using IT Contracts to Protect Against Ransomware Attacks
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • Addressing Legal Risks in Health Care IT Contracts
    Randall I. Stempler, William A. Tanenbaum
  • How Millennials Will Change Health Care IT
    William A. Tanenbaum, Randall I. Stempler
  • How Heath Care Institutions Can Improve Data Security
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • Outlook 2018: Cybersecurity and Data Privacy
    Lei Shen
  • Five Questions General Counsels Should Ask About Privacy and Cybersecurity in Third-Party Contracts (October 13, 2016)
    Lei Shen
  • Privacy Shield Is Here. Now What? (July 15, 2016)
    Lei Shen
  • Intellectual Property and Outsourcing
    Anne K. Sutton
  • Ethics Issues in Negotiating Sourcing Deals
    Janis M. Meyer
  • The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Op. 2015-194
    Janis M. Meyer
  • N.Y. Court of Appeals, Notice to the Bar: Temporary Practice of Law in New York (Part 523) and Registration of Foreign Lawyers as In-House Counsel (Part 522) (Dec. 15, 2015)
    Janis M. Meyer
  • In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct, Case No. A15-2078 (Sup. Ct. Minn. 2016)
    Janis M. Meyer
  • Lawyer’s Professionalism—Lawyers’ Communications With Adversaries—Threatening Professional Discipline, Lawyer’s Lawyer Newsletter (March 2015)
    Janis M. Meyer
  • Universal Gaming Group v. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, 2017 Ill. App. (1st) 150878-U (Mar. 31, 2017)
    Janis M. Meyer
  • NYC Bar Assn. Formal Op. 2018-4: Duties When a Lawyer Is Asked to Assist in a Suspicious Transaction (July 31, 2018)
    Janis M. Meyer

Presentation Material

  • Outsourcing - Getting Deals Done in a Rapidly Changing World
    Brad L. Peterson
  • Outsourcing - The Anatomy of a Master Services Agreement
    John F. Delaney
  • Global Sourcing: Then and Now - Potential Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
    Philip Borders, Michael S. Mensik, Bradley Slattery
  • Case Study - Global Outsourcing in a Digital World
    Peter R. George, David M. Ross
  • Case Study: Global Outsourcing in a Digital World
    Peter R. George, David M. Ross
  • Supplier Perspectives: Strategies for Success
    George Kimball
  • Blackchain & Cryptocurrency Regulation 2019
    Joshua Ashley Klayman
  • Blockchain - The Future of Outsourcing
    Shawnna M. Hoffman-Childress
  • Blockchain - The Future of Outsourcing
    John F. Delaney
  • Blockchain - The Future of Outsourcing
    Joshua Ashley Klayman
  • Blockchain Statistics
    Joshua Ashley Klayman
  • Health Care - A New Frontier in Outsourcing
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • Privacy and Data Security Issues in Outsourcing
    Lei Shen
  • Intellectual Property Issues in Outsourcing
    Barbara Murphy Melby
  • Pricing and Financial Structures in Outsourcing
    Robert M. Finkel, Douglas Plotkin
  • Ethics Issues in Negotiating Sourcing Deals
    Janis M. Meyer
Co-Chair(s)
John F. Delaney ~ Morrison & Foerster LLP
William A. Tanenbaum ~ Polsinelli
Speaker(s)
Philip Borders ~ Director - Transfer Pricing, PwC
Robert M. Finkel ~ WilmerHale
Peter R. George ~ Baker & McKenzie LLP
Shawnna M. Hoffman-Childress ~ Global Cognitive Legal Co-Leader, Watson AI & Quantum Computing, Global CoC, IBM
George Kimball ~ Wiggin and Dana LLP
Joshua Ashley Klayman ~ Klayman LLC
Michael S. Mensik ~ Baker & McKenzie LLP
Janis M. Meyer ~ Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Barbara Murphy Melby ~ Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Brad L. Peterson ~ Mayer Brown LLP
Douglas Plotkin ~ Deloitte
David M. Ross ~ Assistant General Counsel - IP and Global Technology Unit, MetLife
Lei Shen ~ Mayer Brown LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Outsourcing 2019: ITO, BPO and Cloud (New York, NY) Oct. 30 - 31, 2019
Outsourcing 2019: ITO, BPO and Cloud (Chicago, IL) Sep. 23 - 24, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Outsourcing 2019: ITO, BPO and Cloud  
Outsourcing 2018: ITO, BPO and Cloud George Kimball, Wiggin & Dana LLP
William A. Tanenbaum, Polsinelli
John F. Delaney, Morrison & Foerster LLP
Michael S. Mensik, Baker & McKenzie LLP
Brad L. Peterson, Mayer Brown LLP
 
Outsourcing 2017: ITO, BPO and Cloud George Kimball, Wiggin & Dana LLP
William A. Tanenbaum, Arent Fox LLP
John F. Delaney, Morrison & Foerster LLP
Michael S. Mensik, Baker & McKenzie LLP
Brad L. Peterson, Mayer Brown LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.