I disagree about the investment part. If someone in India is working for a large employment law firm representing american employers, I think that person would have something invested in preserving and/or bettering the american legal system: a job.
I think that part of the discrepancies in our arguments stem from the fact that we are generalizing the term "legal jobs". Some, I agree, are completely safe from outsourcing, some aren't, and some are part of large multinational corporations and firms that blur the boundaries. It's the latter that is the loophole. When you have a firm that has offices in NYC, Hong Kong and Sydney, the attorneys employed with that firm can and often do represent clients, directly or indirectly, in multiple countries. Same thing with the big publishing houses such as West and Lexis. What's to stop them from having attorneys editing the code of small-town USA in Brazil? Does that mean that the people of small-town USA want their code produced there? Do they even know?