Florida Court on judges and Facebook friends

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Florida Court on judges and Facebook friends

Courts and ethics committees have been grappling with the issue of judges using social media for years now. At first, the general consensus seemed to be that judges should avoid social media at all costs since any online connections compromised the judge’s appearance of impartiality.

For example in 2012, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reached this very conclusion in Pierre Domville v. State of Florida, No. 4D12-556 and disqualified a judge from overseeing a case because the judge was Facebook “friends” with the prosecuting attorney.

In my Daily Record article about this case, I disagreed with this conclusion, explaining that: “Judges are human beings with lives outside the courtroom. They have preexisting friendships with attorney colleagues that didn’t cease to end when they became judges. To issue ethics decisions that prevent judges from interacting on social media with the very same lawyers with whom they regularly interact in public is nothing short of ridiculous. Let’s hope Florida remains in the minority on this issue.”

Fortunately, as time advances and social media use permeates our culture, opinions on judges using social media are likewise changing with the times. Case in point: the an opinion recently issued by the Third District Court of Appeal in Florida, which expressly conflicted with the the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s determination in Domville.

At issue in Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein v. United States Automobile Association, No. 3D17-1421 was whether the judge assigned to the matter should be disqualified since he was Facebook “friends” with counsel for the defendant.

In reaching its determination on the issue, the Court noted that a friendship between a judge and an attorney is typically insufficient, in and of itself, to present an inherent conflict of interest: “(W)e note as a general matter, that “allegations of mere ‘friendship’ with an attorney or an interested party have been deemed insufficient to disqualify a judge.”

The Court also wisely acknowledged that the rate at which social media and its many platforms has changed over the years necessarily affected its analysis in the case at hand: “(E)lectronic social media is evolving at an exponential rate. Acceptance as a Facebook ‘friend’ may well once have given the impression of close friendship and affiliation. Currently, however, the degree of intimacy among Facebook ‘friends’ varies greatly.”

Next, the Court turned to the issue of assessing the nature of a Facebook friendship in the present day and explained that a connection on Facebook does not necessarily indicate a close personal connection: “A random name drawn from a list of Facebook ‘friends’ probably belongs to…(a) casual friend; an acquaintance; an old classmate; a person with whom the member shares a common hobby; a ‘friend of a friend;’ or even a local celebrity like a coach. An assumption that all Facebook ‘friends’ rise to the level of a close relationship that warrants disqualification simply does not reflect the current nature of this type of electronic social networking.“

As such, the Court concluded that it was departing from the holding in Domville and was declining to disqualify the judge in the case at hand: “Because a ‘friend’ on a social networking website is not necessarily a friend in the traditional sense of the word, we hold that the mere fact
that a judge is a Facebook ‘friend’ with a lawyer for a potential party or witness, without more, does not provide a basis for a well-grounded fear that the judge cannot be impartial or that the judge is under the influence of the Facebook ‘friend.’ On this point we respectfully acknowledge we are in conflict with the opinion of our sister court in Domville.”

It’s heartening to see courts and ethics committees changing with the times and issuing opinions that reflect the current state of social media and technology. Our society is being transformed by the Internet and technology at a rate never before seen. It’s not always easy to keep up, so kudos to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal for setting a great example and keeping pace.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for solo and small law firms. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She can be reached at niki@mycase.com.


NYC Bar on lawyers’ ethical obligations at the border

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

NYC Bar on lawyers’ ethical obligations at the border

Since the election, border crossings have been subject to greater scrutiny by border control agents. This presents a problem for lawyers, who often cross the border carrying electronic devices which contain confidential client information that they are duty bound to protect. Fortunately, the New York City Bar Association provided timely guidance last month when it addressed this issue in Formal Opinion 2017-5 (online: https://tinyurl.com/NYCBarBorder).

This opinion considered the extent of an attorney’s ethical obligation to “protect confidential information prior to crossing a U.S. border, during border searches, and thereafter.” The specific factual scenario at issue involved an attorney who was traveling abroad and was carrying a portable electronic device that stored confidential client data. When the attorney attempted to cross into the United States, an authorized U.S. border control agent demanded that the attorney “unlock” the device. The attorney did not have client consent to disclose any confidential information.

The lengthy, in depth opinion covered a variety of issues, including the ethical obligations of lawyers in this scenario, the limits of the lawful authority of border control agents, and the types of data that may be accessed an reviewed.

The primary conclusions reached by the Professional Ethics Committee were:

Before crossing the U.S. border attorneys must undertake reasonable efforts to protect confidential information;
At the U.S. border attorneys may disclose clients’ confidential information only to the extent “reasonably necessary” to respond to a government agent’s claim of lawful authority;
If confidential information is disclosed during a border search, an attorney must promptly inform affected clients.

The Committee explained that “reasonable efforts” to protect client data will vary. This determination will necessarily turn on “the ease or inconvenience of avoiding possession of confidential information; the need to maintain access to the particular information and its sensitivity; the risk of a border inspection; and any other relevant considerations.”

Importantly the Committee wisely acknowledged that there is no bright line test available to help lawyers ascertain what conduct is reasonable. This is because of “the rapid pace of technological development and the disparities between the practices, capabilities, and resources of attorneys… (which make it) difficult or impossible to identify a list of minimum mandatory prophylactic or technical measures for an attorney to adopt before crossing the U.S. border.”

According to the Committee, one way to avoid the possibility of being required to disclose confidential information at the border is to ensure that no data is stored locally on your mobile devices. Encrypting devices or storing data in cloud are two of the recommended options that lawyers who take data with them when they travel internationally should consider: A lawyer…who handles more sensitive information should consider technological solutions that permit secure remote access to confidential information without creating local copies on the device; storing confidential information and communications in secure online locations rather than locally on the device; or using encrypted software to attempt to restrict access to mobile devices.”

Finally, the Committee concluded that if a lawyer is faced with a purportedly lawful request to access confidential client data, “the attorney first must take reasonable measures to prevent disclosure of confidential information, which would include informing the border agent that the device or files in question contain privileged or confidential materials, requesting that such materials not be searched or copied, asking to speak to a superior officer and making any other lawful requests to protect the confidential information from disclosure. To demonstrate that the device contains attorney-client materials, the attorney should carry proof of bar membership, such as an attorney ID card, when crossing a U.S. border.”

All in all, this is a very useful, well-researched opinion that provides a wealth of information for lawyers who travel internationally regarding their ethical obligations. It offers in depth guidance to assist lawyers in understanding their duties and includes detailed recommendations for preserving client confidences. If International travel is on your agenda in the near future, you’d be well advised to read this opinion prior to your trip.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for solo and small law firms. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She can be reached at niki@mycase.com.


Ohio Bar green lights cloud computing and virtual law firms

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Ohio Bar green lights cloud computing and virtual law firms

Cloud computing - where electronic data is stored offsite on servers owned and maintained by a third party - is quite common in 2017. The proliferation of mobile devices, which are essentially useless in the absence of cloud computing, has helped contribute to this trend. Another relevant factor is the convenience and flexibility offered by web-based computing. When data is stored in the cloud, it can be accessed from anywhere using any internet-enabled device, at any time, day or night.

Because of the many benefits offered by cloud computing, more and more lawyers are using cloud-based software to store and access documents, track time and billing, manage their contacts and calendars, accept online credit card payments from clients, and interact and collaborate with clients, experts, co-counsel, and more. Lawyers are even foregoing brick and mortar law firms and launching virtual law practices.

Because of these developments ethical committees across the country are weighing in on lawyers using cloud computing in their practices, with more than 25 permitting it thus far. In June, Ohio joined their ranks when the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct issued Opinion 2017-05 (online:
http://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Adv.-Op.-2017-5.pdf).

There were 2 issues considered in the opinion: “1) Is it proper for a lawyer to provide legal services exclusively, or almost exclusively, via a “virtual law office?” 2) Is it proper for a lawyer
operating primarily as a “virtual law office” to lease a shared, nonexclusive office space
for purpose of occasional face-to-face meetings with clients, or receiving mail?”

The Board acknowledged that lawyers have a continuing duty to maintain technology competence, explaining that “a VLO lawyer should possess a general knowledge of the security safeguards for the technology used in the lawyer's practice, or in the alternate hire or associate with persons who properly can advise and inform the lawyer.”

The Board confirmed that Ohio lawyers are permitted to use cloud computing technologies to run virtual law practices. In order to comply with their ethical obligations, lawyer must take reasonable efforts to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of confidential client data. Steps lawyers should take include analyzing “ several nonexclusive factors including 1) the sensitivity of the information, 2) the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, 3) the cost of employing additional safeguards, 4) the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and 5) the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients.”

Lawyers must also vet third party cloud computing providers and confirm that the vendor understands that lawyers have a duty of confidentiality, and must also verify that the vendor will maintain and regularly back up law firm data. Finally lawyers must “(r)equire that the vendor give the lawyer notice of subpoenas for client data, nonauthorized access to the stored data, or other breach of security, and a reliable means of retrieving the data if the agreement is terminated or the vendor goes out of business.”

Next the Board moved on to address a virtual attorney’s obligation to clients. According to the Board, due to the unique nature of virtual law offices, lawyers must discuss the technologies that the firm uses with clients, along with the communication methods available, and ascertain which ones are amenable to the client. These determinations should be memorialized in the client fee agreement.

Finally, the Board turned to the issue of the office setup of virtual law firms, concluding that a physical office is not required in Ohio. However, an office address must be provided on letterhead and elsewhere which can consist of “the lawyer’s home or physical office, the address of shared office space, or a registered post office box.” And, the use of shared office space with both lawyers or nonlawyers is permissible as long as steps are taken to maintain the confidentiality of client files.

Overall, this opinion is in line with those issued in other jurisdictions and takes a reasonable stance on lawyers using cloud computing software, such as law practice management software, as part of a virtual law office setup. Notably, Ohio allows provides lawyers with flexibility when it comes to listing an office address, permitting the use of an post office box, rather than requiring virtual lawyers who have no physical office space to use their home address, as some justifications do.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for solo and small law firms. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She can be reached at niki@mycase.com.


U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment rights and social media

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Last month the United States Supreme Court weighed in on the intersection of the First Amendment with social media in Packinham v. North Carolina, No. 15–1194

The Court struck down a North Carolina criminal statute on First Amendment grounds. The law provided that registered sex offenders who used social media sites that could be accessed by children could be convicted of a felony. Although the majority’s holding itself was notable, even more interesting and groundbreaking was the language used by the court in reaching its decision.

At the outset, the majority confirmed the far-reaching impact of the internet and social media on our society, and importantly acknowledged that when issuing rulings related to technology, courts must understand that it is ever advancing and always changing: “While we now may be coming to the realization that the Cyber Age is a revolution of historic proportions, we cannot appreciate yet its full dimensions and vast potential to alter how we think, express ourselves, and define who we want to be. The forces and directions of the Internet are so new, so protean, and so far reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today might be obsolete tomorrow.”

Next, the majority turned to social media and noted the potential it has to amplify each and every person’s message, allowing everyone an opportunity to be heard.”These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to ‘become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.’”

The majority then engaged in what I consider to be the hallmark of every well-decided opinion involving issues related to internet activities: analogized the online conduct to similar offline conduct:. The majority wisely explained: “The better analogy to this case is Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U. S. 569 (1987), where the Court struck down an ordinance prohibiting any ‘First Amendment activities’ at Los Angeles International Airport because the ordinance covered all manner of protected, nondisruptive behavior including ‘talking and reading, or the wearing of campaign buttons or symbolic clothing,’ id., at 571, 575. If a law prohibiting ‘all protected expression’ at a single airport is not constitutional, id., at 574 (emphasis deleted), it follows with even greater force that the State may not enact this complete bar to the exercise of First Amendment rights on websites integral to the fabric of our modern society and culture.”

In comparison, the dissent’s position was a great example of the common knee jerk reaction to new technologies sometimes shown by courts and ethics bars across the country, wherein the dissent exhibited a reluctance to adapt to the changing times: “Cyberspace is different from the physical world, and if it is true, as the Court believes, that ‘we cannot appreciate yet’ the ‘full dimensions and vast potential’ of ‘the Cyber Age,’ ibid., we should proceed circumspectly, taking one step at a time.”

Interestingly, this reticence toward embracing new technologies that was expressed by the dissenting justices, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, is rarely present when those same justices apply emerging technologies to limit constitutional rights, rather than expand them. For example, no such reluctance has been shown when these same justices diminish the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens, whether it’s permitting the use of technology to enhance the ability of law enforcement to snoop on U.S. citizens or granting law enforcement unfettered investigational access to data stored online. These countervailing approaches to technology by the more conservative members of the court represent a strange, but not entirely surprising, contradiction of ideology, and it’s a trend that I don’t expect will change anytime soon.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, legal technology journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for solo and small law firms. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She can be reached at niki@mycase.com.

 


Free Legal Research With Google Scholar

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

It is indisputable that the internet and advances in technology have leveled the playing field, making it easier than ever for solo and small firm lawyers to compete with larger firms. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the field of legal research.

Affordable, or even free, legal research tools can make all the difference for solo and small firm lawyers. The trick is knowing which legal research platforms make the most sense for your law firm. These days, there are more tools available than ever, with Google Scholar leading the pack when it comes to free legal research tools.

It used to be that the only legal research options were either to head over to the closest law library or maintain a costly and space-consuming library on your law firm's premises. Along came electronic research capabilities, but even then, it cost an arm and a leg to subscribe to the two most popular platforms, Westlaw or Lexis. The high subscription costs often made these platforms unpalatable for many solo and small firm attorneys.

But this was back in the good ol’ days when Lexis and Westlaw had cornered the legal research market. How times have changed! The internet age ushered in a new era in legal research, making legal information available to everyone at little to no cost. The Cornell Legal Information Institute was one of the first online platforms to make legal information free and easily accessible to lawyers and legal consumers alike--and it continues to do so to this very day.

But it was the launch of Google Scholar's fully searchable legal case database in November of 2009 that truly revolutionized legal research. Suddenly, lawyers everywhere could search vast caselaw databases for free. Since then, Google Scholar’s research capabilities have improved substantially, making it easier than ever to conduct legal research and check the citations of relevant cases.

So what's covered in Google Scholar's database? A lot. It includes court opinions from all 50 states and all federal courts, and even provides links to relevant law review articles in citation check results. The specific jurisdictions covered are described in Google Scholar’s FAQ as follows: “Google Scholar allows you to search and read published opinions of US state appellate and supreme court cases since 1950, US federal district, appellate, tax and bankruptcy courts since 1923 and US Supreme Court cases since 1791. In addition, it includes citations for cases cited by indexed opinions or journal articles which allows you to find influential cases (usually older or international) which are not yet online or publicly available.”

To use Google Scholar, simply head over to the Google Scholar home page (online: https://scholar.google.com/) and check the "legal documents" category under the search box and select the courts you’d like to search.

From there, searching Google Scholar is as easy as searching Google. Simply enter natural search terms into the search box and in no time flat you’ll have your results. You can then limit the results by court or date. You can further refine your search terms using advanced search functions, and can even enter boolean search terms. Google Scholar also includes the ability to perform fairly sophisticated cite checks of caselaw, which include information on the relevance of citing cases to a specific legal issue.
Every year since its roll out, Google Scholar’s legal research capabilities have improved and new features have been added, with the end result being a robust, easy-to-use legal research tool. It may not have the bells and whistles of some of its more costly competitors, but for lawyers seeking to conduct legal research on a budget, it’s worth looking into.

Interested in learning more about using Google Scholar for legal research? You can find a full tutorial with screenshots here.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, legal technology journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for solo and small law firms. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She can be reached at niki@mycase.com.


New Jersey judge permits service via Facebook

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

New Jersey judge permits service via Facebook

If you’re a litigator, then I can only assume that by now you fully understand how social media platforms impact your practice. At this point in time, one way or another, you’ve undoubtedly encountered social media issues while representing your clients. Whether it’s crimes being committed using social media platforms, mining social media for evidence, researching jurors on social media, or using social media as a method for service of process, social media crops up in a multitude of ways during the litigation process.

This trend began in approximately 2010, when social media use began to appear in criminal cases as the basis for criminal acts. From there it took a few years before lawyers began to affirmatively use social media on their client’s behalf during litigation matters. I’ve been tracking those trends for some time now, including the use of social media platforms for service of process.

For example, in October 2014, I wrote about two judges who had issued orders permitting service upon litigants using Facebook: a U.S. Magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Virginia (Whoshere, Inc., v. Gokhan Orun d/b/a/ WhoNear) and a New York family court judge (Noel B. v. Anna Maria A., Docket No. F-00787-13/14B). Then, in March 2015, another New York judge jumped on the bandwagon and permitted service via Facebook in a matrimonial case (Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku (2015 NY Slip Op 25096)).

Last year, I wrote about Ferrerese v. Shaw,15 CV 3738 (ARR) (CLP), where United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York, Cheryl L. Pollak permitted an alternate method of service via Facebook, but also required the plaintiff to attempt to effect service using other methods as well.

The issue was addressed even more recently in Axberg v. Langston, Docket No. MRS-C-157 (2016). In this post-adoption case, as reported in the New Jersey Law Journal, Judge Stephan C. Hansbury, Morris County P.J. (ret.), considered the issue of whether service of process could be effected via social media - specifically using Facebook.

In this case, the plaintiffs filed an order to show cause and a verified complaint seeking to restrain the defendant, the purported biological father of their adopted son, from contacting them and/or their son on social media. According to the complaint, the defendant had reached out to their son, his sister, and his adoptive father on Facebook and Instagram, claiming to be his biological father.

After unsuccessfully attempting to serve the defendant via more traditional methods, including regular and certified mail, the plaintiffs sought permission to serve the defendant using Facebook. In reaching its decision, the Court applied the 3-prong test established in Baidoo (above) and determined that the Facebook page in question was the defendant’s, that it appeared to be regularly updated, and due to the unique nature of this case, no other supplemental service method was necessary. Accordingly, the Court concluded that service via Facebook, and Facebook alone, was a sufficient method of service.

Following the Court’s decision, service of process using Facebook was thus accomplished and the defendant soon replied, sending a private message to the plaintiffs counsel on Facebook indicating that he’d received it, stating “I’ll see you in court.” He subsequently appeared via telephone on the return date of the matter.

Another court, another day. Service of process using social media platforms is becoming increasingly common, which is not unexpected. After all, the practice of law can only resist societal changes for so long. Social media is a force to be reckoned with and it’s not going away. Rather than turn a blind eye to it, learn about it and use it to the benefit of your clients. After all, knowledge is power and you have an obligation to provide zealous representation to your clients - something that is impossible to do if you’re not adequately armed with the tools needed to do so.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, legal technology journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for solo and small law firms. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She can be reached at niki@mycase.com.

 

 


NYSBA issues updated social media guidelines for lawyers

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

NYSBA issues updated social media guidelines for lawyers

I’ve always believed that social media use by lawyers should be treated no differently than any other type of communication by lawyers. After all, online interactions are simply an extension of offline interactions, and the medium doesn’t change the message. For that reason, it has pained me to see so many ethics committees issuing so many opinions over the years on the many perceived nuances of online communication by lawyers.

Many of these opinions are simply unnecessary and constitute knee jerk reactions to a new way of interacting. And many are based on faulty reasoning grounded in the assumption that online communications are somehow different than those occurring offline and thus warrant the application of new, more stringent standards. Others, however, necessarily address issues that are unique to online communications. One good example is opinions that address the issue of whether the passive notifications received by LinkedIn users (who also happen to be jurors) which indicate that a lawyer has viewed their profile constitute impermissible juror contact.

Regardless of whether I agree with the sheer volume of opinions or their merit, the end result is that lawyers are left to their own devices when it comes to reviewing the many opinions and deciphering which types of on online interactions are ethical. Navigating the maze of ethics opinions can be a difficult and overwhelming task and for that reason, some attorneys simply choose to forego using social media altogether.

That’s where the recently updated “Social Media Ethics Guidelines,” issued by the the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association, come in.


These guidelines were first released in 2014 with the intent to provide lawyers with guidance in navigating the many ethical issues encountered when using social media in a professional context. The Guidelines were revised in 2015 and, then, just 2 weeks ago, a newly updated version of the Guidelines was released.

Some of the more notable revisions include:

  • Attorney Competence (§ 1.A) reflects that 27 states have adopted some duty of technical competence.
  • Maintaining Client Confidences (§ 5.E) offers information on how an attorney can respond to online reviews as well as services that offer to import contacts.
  • Positional Conflicts (§2.E) is new and discusses DC Bar Ethics Opinion 370 regarding whether social media posts adverse to a client’s interest may present a conflict of interest. The revised appendix describes social media terminology and some of the more popular social media platforms.
  • The newly added social media definitions are particularly useful, and I have to admit that although I’ve always considered myself to be more social media-savvy than most lawyers (having written a book on lawyers using social media), even I learned a few things after reading through the definitions.

So, if you haven’t yet read the updated Guidelines, make sure to set aside some time in order to do so. They provide a very useful, extensive round up of how ethics committees across the country have approached lawyers using social media. The Guidelines are a great resource that will serve as a handy reference guide for your professional online social media activities.

 

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, legal technology journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for solo and small law firms. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She can be reached at niki@mycase.com.

 


Judges weigh in on researching jurors online

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Judges Weigh In On Researching Jurors Online

Now that social media is simply part of our day-to-day lives, it’s no surprise that it’s also appearing in legal cases. Lawyers routinely seek to access social media data during the discovery phase of trial, mine social media for evidence to use during trial, and research jurors prior to voir dire.

In the past I’ve covered the various ethics opinions regarding lawyers mining social media for evidence and researching jurors using social media. New York, D.C., Pennsylvania, Oregon, and quite a few other jurisdictions have addressed these issues. But it’s not just ethics committees that are weighing in on social media use in litigation. Many Judges are throwing their hats in the ring as well and are establishing procedures for their courtrooms that address the use of social media evidence at trial.

Oftentimes judges recognize that online research alone isn’t necessarily problematic. For example, in 2014 it was reported in a Tampa Bay Times article that in a ruling issued by Circuit Judge Anthony Rondolino, he indicated that allowing parties to research jurors online and then share any relevant information obtained with the court could help to avoid mistrials. His rationale was based on the premise that jurors don’t always disclose relevant information during voir dire, although the failure to do so isn’t necessarily intentional and can sometimes arise from a failure to understand the questions being posed to them.

Other judges are more wary of online research when it comes to jurors, such as U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas. Earlier this year he issued a standing order that prohibits “all attorneys, parties, and their respective employees and agents, including jury consultants rom contacting jurors through social media.” However, simply researching jurors by viewing public profiles was permitted, even where jurors might receive passive notifications of the viewing of their profile: “(T)hey are not prohibited from conducting or causing another to conduct any
type of online investigation merely because a juror or potential juror may become aware that his or her ESM is being reviewed. For example, lawyers are not prohibited from reviewing the LinkedIn accounts of jurors or potential jurors even if network settings would alert that juror or potential juror to the fact that a lawyer from the case has reviewed his or her LinkedIn account.”

And last, but not least, in 20116, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, adopted a local rule in early 2016 that allows lawyers and their agents to research jurors using social media so long as the information viewed is publicly accessible. However, the rule provides that passive notifications indicating that a specific person has viewed a juror’s social media profile are not permitted. Importantly, the rule provides that “If an attorney becomes aware of a juror’s posting on the internet about the case in which she or he is serving, the attorney shall report the issue to the court.”

So, the times they are indeed a’changin’, my friends. Social media is here to stay and in many cases, that’s not a bad thing. It can be a valuable tool for litigation purposes, as long as you are aware of the applicable ethical guidelines and rules of court. So use social media to your clients’ advantage, but make sure to use it wisely.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for the modern law firm. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at niki@mycase.com.


ABA Issues New Opinion On Secure Online Communication With Clients

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

In 1999, the American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 99-413, which permitted lawyers to use email to communicate with clients. In that opinion, the ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility concluded: “Lawyers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in

communications made by all forms of e-mail, including unencrypted e-mail sent on the Internet,

despite some risk of interception and disclosure. It therefore follows that its use is consistent with the duty under Rule 1.6 to use reasonable means to maintain the confidentiality of information relating to a client’s representation.”

Times have most certainly changed since 1999. So, too, has technology. While email used to be the best method available for electronic communication with legal clients, technology has advanced such that the security issues inherent in email make it a less desirable way to communicate with clients compared to alternative and far more secure online communication tools.

That’s why the ABA issued Formal Opinion 477 on May 11, 2017. In this opinion, the Committee concluded that because there are more secure electronic communication methods available in 2017, lawyers may want to consider avoiding email for many client communications and use other, more secure electronic methods instead.

At the outset, the Committee acknowledged that today most lawyers “primarily use electronic means to communicate and exchange documents with clients, other lawyers, and even with other persons who are assisting a lawyer in delivering legal services to clients” including “desktop, laptop and notebook computers, tablet devices, smartphones, and cloud resource and storage locations.”

Next, the Committee noted that pursuant to an amendment to the Model Rules adopted by the ABA in 2012, lawyers now have a continuing duty to stay abreast of changes in technology. As part of that duty lawyers must take reasonable efforts to protect confidential client information from disclosure and in doing so must assess “the methods of electronic communications employed, and the types of available security measures for each method.” Furthermore, when dealing with highly sensitive confidential client information, lawyers must “inform the client of the risks involved” and advise that either extra measures should be taken to protect email transmissions or that email should be avoided altogether.

Factors to be considered when determining the appropriate way to communicate with clients in each case include:

  • the sensitivity of the information,
  • the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed,
  • the cost of employing additional safeguards,
  • the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and
  • the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent

clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use).

The obligation to evaluate and choose appropriate technology to protect client data may be outsourced “through association with another lawyer or expert, or by education.”

Importantly, the Committee emphasized that “(a) fact-based analysis means that particularly strong protective measures, like encryption, are warranted in some circumstances.” The Committee explained that as long as lawyers have implemented basic and reasonably available methods of common electronic security measures, using unencrypted email may be appropriate for routine or low sensitivity communications, but that due to “cyber-threats and (the fact that) the proliferation of electronic communications devices have changed the landscape…it is not always reasonable to rely on the use of unencrypted email.” As such, lawyers must assess how to communicate about client matters on a case-by case basis.

The Committee recommended that lawyers take certain steps when making this assessment for each case: 1) understand the nature of the threat, 2) understand how client confidential information is transmitted and where it is stored, and 3) understand and use reasonable electronic security measures, 4) determine how electronic communications about client matters should be protected, 5) label client confidential information, 6) train lawyers ad non lawyer assistants in technology and information security, and 7) conduct due diligence on vendors providing communication technology.

The Committee concluded that the duty to vet the security measures taken by each third party provider that stores a law firm’s confidential client data is a continuing one and lawyers must “periodically reassess these factors to confirm that the lawyer’s actions continue to comply with the ethical obligations and have not been rendered inadequate by changes in circumstances or technology.”

Of note, the Committee explained that client matters involving proprietary information such as “industrial designs, mergers and acquisitions or trade secrets, and industries like healthcare, banking, defense or education, may present a higher risk of data theft” and as such reasonable efforts in those in higher risk scenarios generally requires that greater effort be taken to protect client data than simply using unsecure email to communicate. The Committee suggested a number of more secure alternatives including using secure Wi-Fi, a Virtual Private Network, and a secure Internet portal such as those routinely included with law practice management software.

The Committee clarified that cloud-based online collaboration portals are a viable option to ensure secure communication: “(I)f client information is of sufficient sensitivity, a lawyer should encrypt the transmission and determine how to do so to sufficiently protect it, and consider the use of password protection for any attachments. Alternatively, lawyers can consider the use of a well vetted and secure third-party cloud based file storage system to exchange documents normally attached to emails.”

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for the modern law firm. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at niki@mycase.com.


When worlds collide – A tweet constitutes an assault

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

When Worlds Collide: A Tweet Constitutes An Assault

Sometimes a tweet is just a tweet in the online world, and other times it can amount to an assault in the “real” world. At least, that’s the difficult lesson learned by John Rayne Rivello, a Maryland man who was indicted in Texas and charged with the hate crime, Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, in violation of PC 22.02(a)(2).

In December 2016, Rivello allegedly sent a tweet to Kurt Eichenwald, a senior reporter for Newsweek, following Eichenwald’s appearance on Fox News. The tweet included an image with the accompanying text, “YOU DESERVE A SEIZURE FOR YOUR POSTS.”

Eichenwald suffered from epilepsy, something he’d shared publicly in the past. The image that accompanied the tweet was an animated GIF of a strobe light intended to trigger seizures in those who were susceptible to them. The tweet had the intended effect and caused Eichenwald to suffer from an 8-minute seizure, after which he was unable to speak and was then reportedly incapacitated for a number of days.

As a result of the incident, an investigation was conducted resulting in Rivello’s indictment and arrest last week. This case is interesting for two reasons. First, the allegations in this case represent a unique intersection of technology with criminal conduct. Second, the investigation that was conducted to support the charges involved law enforcement access to Rivello’s Twitter and iCloud accounts.

Turning to the allegations, they are unusual in that the “deadly weapon” is considered to be Rivello’s hands, electronic devices, and the content of the tweet he sent. Each item alone is arguably harmless, but according to the indictment, when combined within the context of this incident, became a deadly weapon with which Rivello knowingly caused injury.

Specifically, the Grand Jury’s indictment alleged that on December 16, 2016, he “intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caused bodily injury to Kurt Eichenwald, a disabled person…by inducing a seizure with an animated strobe image, knowing that the complainant was susceptible to seizures and that such animations are capable of causing seizures, and said defendant did use and exhibit a deadly weapon, to wit: a Tweet and a Graphics Interchange Format (GIF), and an Electronic Device and Hands, during the commission of the assault…And further that the Defendant did intentionally select said Kurt Eichnewald primarily because of the said Defendant’s prejudice or bias against a group identified by race, ancestry, or religion, namely: persons of Jewish faith or descent.”

The investigation conducted by law enforcement is also noteworthy since it represents an increasing trend in today’s technology-infused world: digital footprints are becoming a regular source of evidence in criminal cases. In this case, search warrants were issued allowing the police to review Rivello’s Twitter and iCloud accounts. Evidence obtained included direct messages sent by Rivello to other Twitter users including that he knew that Eichenwald had epilepsy, intended for the tweet with the strobe GIF to trigger an epileptic seizure, and that the hoped the seizure would kill Eichenwald.

After reviewing files stored in his iCloud account, investigators discovered research regarding the victim, epilepsy seizure triggers, and the progress of the investigation into the attack on Eichenwald. The evidence obtained from Rivello’s online accounts established that his sent the Tweet and helped to show the necessary intent and his motive to harm Eichenwald.

This indictment is clear evidence that the times they are a’changin’, with the online world and the offline world rapidly merging. The influence of social media and technology on our day-to-day lives is inescapable and cannot be ignored. What was once viewed as a fad is now part of the very fabric of our world and lawyers who ignore the effects of technology do so at their own peril.

It’s undeniable: the online world impacts your cases, your clients, and your practice. Embrace it or be left behind.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for the modern law firm. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at niki@mycase.com.


NY Ethics Committee on lawyers accepting credit card payments

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

NY Ethics Committee on lawyers accepting credit card payments

The Internet and cloud computing have drastically altered the legal landscape, including the expectations of legal consumers. Because of rapid advancements in technology and 24/7 access to information, the needs of legal clients are necessarily changing with the times. They expect immediate access to information, responsive client service, and flexibility in paying their legal bills, including the ability to make credit card payments online to pay for legal services rendered.

Fortunately for New York lawyers, the ability to accept credit card payments for legal fees was deemed ethical years ago. Of course, even so, questions sometimes arise when lawyers seek to collect credit card payments in unusual way. Such was the case in New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 1112.

At issue in this case was whether a firm could include in its retainer agreement language establishing a particular type of credit card payment arrangement. Specifically, the inquiring attorney asked whether a law firm may impose “through its retainer agreement a 20-day time limit for payment upon clients, after which the law firm may automatically bill the client’s credit card for the full amount of the unpaid balance of the moneys outstanding?”

At the outset, the Committee on Professional Ethics acknowledged that when lawyers accept credit card payments from clients, it does not usually present an ethical issue: “It is well-established that, in certain circumstances, New York lawyers may allow their clients to pay their attorneys’ fees by credit card.”

Of course, there are exceptions to that general rule that New York lawyers should be aware of. The Committee explained that there were a number of caveats to the rule: “A lawyer may accept credit card payments of legal fees so long as: (i) the amount of the fee is reasonable; (ii) the lawyer complies with the duty to protect the confidentiality of client information; (iii) the lawyer does not allow the credit card company to compromise the lawyer’s independent professional judgment on behalf of the client; (iv) the lawyer notifies the client before the charges are billed to the credit card and offers the client the opportunity to question any billing errors; and (v) in the event of any dispute regarding the lawyer’s fee, the lawyer attempts to resolve all disputes amicably and promptly and, if applicable, complies with the fee dispute resolution program set forth in 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 137.”

Next the Committee turned to the issue at hand, concluding that the retainer agreement could include a clause that allowed a firm to automatically bill the client’s credit card for any outstanding fees, as long as certain other requirements were met: “(T)he proposed 20-day provision would be consistent with the Rules only if the retainer agreement also expressly informed the client of the right to dispute any invoice (and to request fee arbitration in accord with applicable court rules, prior to the imposition of any disputed credit card charges).”

So, not only are lawyers permitted to accept credit cards to pay legal fees, they can also automatically bill a client’s credit card for unpaid fees as long as the retainer agreement includes the necessary language required to provide clients with notice of their legal rights.

That’s good news because today’s legal clients expect to have multiple payment methods available to them; the more methods you offer, the more likely you are to get paid. When you accept online credit card payments from clients, whether through a stand-alone payments platform or through your firm’s law practice management system, it makes it easy for your clients to pay their legal fees, thus ensuring that you get paid quickly. So now that you know it’s ethical for New York lawyers to accept credit card payments from clients, what are you waiting for?

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for the modern law firm. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at niki@mycase.com.


Attorney-client privilege waived when non-password protected files stored online

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Attorney-client privilege waived when non-password protected files stored online

Lawyers have been using cloud computing for nearly a decade now. Nearly 30 different jurisdictions, including New York, have issued ethics opinions permitting lawyers to store confidential client data in the cloud as long as reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the data is secure. But what steps must be taken to ensure that the data is securely stored? And if the data is not adequately protected, then how might that affect a pending case?

Some of these questions were answered in Harleysville Insurance Company v. Holding Funeral Home Inc., a decision handed down by the United States District Court, Western District of Virginia last month (online: http://tinyurl.com/mcl5qxp). Issues considered in the case were whether the attorney-client and work product privilege were waived when defense counsel accessed data (via a link found in discovery documents) stored by the plaintiffs online in an unprotected Box.net account.

At the outset, the Court acknowledged the ever-changing state of technology in the 21st century and the necessary obligations of those who choose to take advantage of it. Interestingly, the language used by the Court echoed the language typically used by ethics committees who have opined in recent years on the obligations of lawyers to stay abreast of changes in technology. “The technology involved in information sharing is rapidly evolving. Whether a company chooses to use a new technology is a decision within that company's control. If it chooses to use a new technology, however, it should be responsible for ensuring that its employees and agents understand how the technology works, and, more importantly, whether the technology allows unwanted access by others to its confidential information”

In reaching its decision, the Court noted that the fact that the data stored online in this case was not protected by a password was pivotal. “(T)he information uploaded to this site was available for viewing by anyone, anywhere who was connected to the internet and happened upon the site by use of the hyperlink or otherwise. In essence, Harleysville has conceded that its actions were the cyber world equivalent of leaving its claims file on a bench in the public square and telling its counsel where they could find it. It is hard to image (sic) an act that would be more contrary to protecting the confidentiality of information than to post that information to the world wide web.”

Next, the Court concluded that because the data was not stored in a password protected account, the attorney work product privilege likewise did not apply: “Harleysville's disclosure should not be considered ‘inadvertent' under federal law. Harleysville has not claimed that its agent's posting of its Claims File to the Box Site was not an intentional act. Also, based on my reasoning above, I cannot find that Harleysville, or its counsel, took reasonable steps to prevent its disclosure or to rectify the situation. Therefore, I find that Rule 502 does not apply in this situation to prevent a waiver of the work-product doctrine.”

Finally, the court considered whether defense counsel’s conduct in viewing the unprotected Box file was unethical. The Court concluded that the defense counsel’s actions warranted sanctions because “defense counsel should have realized that the Box Site might contain privileged or protected information…and should have contacted Harleysville's counsel and revealed that it had access to this information.”

So the lesson to be learned from this case is that it is critical to ensure that any information you store online is adequately protected. By using platforms designed for lawyers that are encrypted and password protected, you’re able to meet your ethical obligations and avoid waiving any privileges related to that data. The key is to ensure that you understand the technology that you’re using and that you take sufficient steps to vet any third party providers who will be housing your client’s information.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for the modern law firm. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at niki@mycase.com.


Survey shows how lawyers use technology in 2017

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

 

Survey shows how lawyers use technology in 2017

Technology has become part of the fabric of our lives. Its effects are inescapable and its impact on our culture has been tremendous. In the business world, technology has helped to streamline processes and improve efficiencies. Although most lawyers weren’t first in line when it came to using technology in their practices, over time the benefits of doing so became clear. That’s why today’s lawyers are increasingly incorporating the latest tools and software into their law firms.

As shown in a survey recently conducted by Above the Law in partnership with MyCase (the company for which I work) lawyers’ technology needs and decisions vary depending on a number of factors, including firm size. The goal of the survey was to determine how lawyers would use technology in the upcoming year. The focus was on learning more about the goals and challenges lawyers faced in running their practices and the types of technologies they planned to incorporate into their firms in 2017 to solve those problems.

As part of the survey, lawyers were asked: 1) What will you do in 2017 to modernize your law firm? and 2) What is the biggest challenge at your law firm?

Nearly 650 lawyers responded to the survey from firms of all sizes. The largest number of respondents (52%) were from firms of 20 or more lawyers, followed by solo lawyers (18%), firms with 2-5 lawyers (13%), firms with 5-10 lawyers (11%), and mid-sized firms with 10-20 lawyers (6%).

When lawyers were asked about the steps they would take in 2017 to modernize their firms, the most popular response was that they planned to move towards a paperless law office (21%). Other responses included revamping the firm’s website (18%), investing in legal practice management software (10%), moving to the cloud (8%), and accepting online payments from legal clients (3%).

Solo and small firm lawyers were the most likely to take steps to accept online payments in 2017(10%), while larger firm lawyers prioritized revamping their firm’s website (44%). Another area of focus for solo and small firm lawyers was investing in law practice management software, with 32% reporting that was a priority in the coming year.

The responses to the challenges faced by lawyers were particularly enlightening. By far, the biggest hurdles lawyers encounter are managing their workload (19%) and bringing in new business (16%). In some ways, these replies were counterintuitive, but the responses to these pressures clearly varied by firm size, with 26% of solos reporting difficulties obtaining clients, compared to only 13% of large firm lawyers. In comparison, 21% of large firm lawyers reported issues managing their workload, while only 14% of solos did. So it’s readily apparent that large firm lawyers and solos encounter very different challenges in their day-to-day practices.

Other common issues that lawyers reported facing in their practices included communicating with clients (8%), tracking time and billing (7%), managing case files (7%), choosing the right technology (6%), and getting paid (4%). Interestingly, getting paid was the most difficult for solo attorneys, with 8% reporting this was a hurdle they faced. Mid-sized firms with 10-20 lawyers were next at 5%, followed by firms with 5-10 lawyers at 4%. Large and small firms reported less of an issue with collecting payment, with large firms at 3% and small firms with 2-5 lawyers at 2%.

How do your plans for 2017 compare? There’s no reason to run your law firm as if it were still 1995. Technology has revolutionized the way that business is being conducted. Smart lawyers understand the realities of practicing law in the 21st century and the benefits of taking advantage of the latest tools and software. By doing so, you’re able to run your law practice more efficiently, allowing you to be a more effective lawyer. So what are you waiting for? What steps will you take in 2017 to modernize your law firm?

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for the modern law firm. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at niki@mycase.com


Illinois Bar permits lawyers to use cloud computing

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Illinois Bar permits lawyers to use cloud computing

When I first started writing about cloud computing use by lawyers in 2008, most lawyers had no idea what cloud computing was. These days, the concept of cloud computing - where your law firm’s data is stored offsite on servers owned and maintained by a third party - is much more familiar and accepted. It’s no longer the mystery that it once was, in large part because its use is so prevalent in the business world and because more than 20 jurisdictions have already addressed the issue of whether it’s ethical for lawyers to use cloud computing software to store their confidential client information and have concluded that it is permissible.

The latest jurisdiction to weigh in is Illinois. Last fall, in Opinion No. 16-06 (online: https://www.isba.org/sites/default/files/ethicsopinions/16-06.pdf), the Illinois State Bar Association considered this issue and concluded that the use of cloud computing by lawyers is permissible as long as reasonable care is taken to ensure that “client confidentiality is protected and client data is secure.”

In reaching this decision, the Committee acknowledged that mandating lawyers to take specific steps when vetting a cloud computing provider would be unwise due to the rapid pace of change in today’s world: “Because technology changes so rapidly, we decline to provide specific requirements for lawyers when choosing and utilizing an outside provider for cloud-based services. Lawyers must insure (sic.) that the provider reasonably safeguards client information and, at the same time, allows the attorney access to the data.”

However, the Committee did offer the following suggested areas of focus for lawyers to consider when questioning a potential cloud computing vendor: “Reasonable inquiries and practices could include: 1. Reviewing cloud computing industry standards and familiarizing oneself with the appropriate safeguards that should be employed; 2. Investigating whether the provider has implemented reasonable security precautions to protect client data from inadvertent disclosures, including but not limited to the use of firewalls, password protections, and encryption; 3. Investigating the provider’s reputation and history; 4. Inquiring as to whether the provider has experienced any breaches of security and if so, investigating those breaches; 5. Requiring an agreement to reasonably ensure that the provider will abide by the lawyer’s duties of confidentiality and will immediately notify the lawyer of any breaches or outside requests for client information; 6. Requiring that all data is appropriately backed up completely under the lawyer’s control so that the lawyer will have a method for retrieval of the data; 7. Requiring provisions for the reasonable retrieval of information if the agreement is terminated or if the provider goes out of business.”

Importantly, the Committee clarified that lawyers have a continuing duty to ensure that each vendor they use to store confidential client data in the cloud remains in compliance: “We do not believe that the lawyer’s obligations end when the lawyer selects a reputable provider. Pursuant to Rules 1.6 and 5.3, a lawyer has ongoing obligations to protect the confidentiality of client information and data and to supervise non-lawyers. Future advances in technology may make a lawyer’s current reasonable protective measures obsolete. Accordingly, a lawyer must conduct periodic reviews and regularly monitor existing practices to determine if the client information is adequately secured and protected.”

This Committee isn’t the first to require lawyers to revisit a cloud computing provider’s security measures on a regular basis. New York, is one of the many other jurisdictions that requires this as well. Because of this continuing duty, many lawyers choose to limit the number of integrations that connect to their primary cloud-computing platform. That way, the number of third parties that have access to your law firm's data is reduced and you have fewer companies to vet on a regular basis, making it easier to maintain your ethical obligations.

So, Illinois now joins the ranks of other jurisdictions that have considered this issue and green lighted lawyers’s use of cloud computing. It’s clear that cloud computing is here to stay. It offers law firms incredible benefits, including affordability, mobility, flexibility, convenience, data backup, and secure online storage. If you haven’t already considered using cloud computing software, such as legal practice management software, in your law firm, perhaps the time is now.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for the modern law firm. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at niki@mycase.com


Lawyers and Social Media in 2017

Stacked3Here is this week's Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Lawyers and Social Media in 2017


Until recently, lawyers have been reticent to use social media, insisting that it was a passing fad. However, because social media has increasingly cropped up as important evidence in cases, lawyers’ attitudes have begun to change, as they realize that it can be a valuable tool, both in litigation and in marketing.

That’s why in 2017, more lawyers and law firms are using social media than ever before. In fact, according to the American Bar Association’s most recent Legal Technology Survey Report, 74% of law firms now maintain a presence on a social network and 76% of lawyers report that they personally use one or more social media networks for professional purposes.

According to the Report, lawyers use social media for a number of reasons, ranging from career development/networking (73%) and client development (51%), to education/current awareness (35%) and case investigation (21%).

Lawyers under the age of 40 are the most likely to use social media at 88%. Next in line are lawyers between the ages of 40-49 year old at 85%, then 50-59 year old lawyers at 81%, and then lawyers 60 years old or older at 64%.
For some lawyers, social media is an effective marketing tool, with 25% of lawyers reporting that they’ve had a client retain them because of their social media activity, up from 19% in 2013. Solo attorneys were the most likely to report this at 34%, while attorneys from large firms (100 or more lawyers) were the least likely at 16%.

Blogging is also an important tool for lawyers with 26% of lawyers reporting that their law firm maintains a legal blog. For those lawyers who personally maintain a legal blog, 42% have had a client retain their legal services directly or via referral as a result of their blogging.

The most popular social network for lawyers is LinkedIn. Presumably lawyers are more comfortable with LinkedIn compared to other social networks due to its focus on professional issues rather than social. According to the report, a whopping 91% of firms of 100 or more attorneys have a presence in LinkedIn, followed by 85% of solos, 76% of mid-sized firms with 10-49 lawyers, and 63% of smaller firms with 2-9 lawyers.

Nearly 80% of all individual lawyers have a profile on Linkedin as well, with solos and lawyers from mid-sized firms leading the way, with 99% of lawyers from firms with 10-49 lawyers using LinkedIn and 91% of solos. In third place were lawyers from firms of 2-9 lawyers at 85%.
The most active lawyers on Facebook are solos at 48%, followed by 41% of lawyers from small firms (2-9 attorneys). Mid-sized firms with 10-49 lawyers were next at 22%, with lawyers at firms with 100 or more lawyers coming in last at 16%.

Facebook is also a popular social network for lawyers, with many lawyers reporting that they use it for personal reasons only, including 89% of solos, 89% of lawyers from small firms, 82% of attorneys from mid-sized firms, and 80% from large firms of 100 or more. The most active lawyers on Facebook for professional purposes are solos at 48%, followed by 41% of lawyers from small firms (2-9 attorneys). Mid-sized firms with 10-49 lawyers were next at 22%, with lawyers at firms with 100 or more lawyers came in last at 16%.

The least popular network amongst lawyers isTwitter, with only 21% of lawyers reporting that their firms maintain a presence on Twitter. And, only 25% of respondents report that they personally maintain a presence on Twitter. When it comes to lawyers maintaining a personal presence on Twitter, lawyers from mid-sized firms lead the way with 26% maintaining a Twitter account, followed by 25% of solos, 25% of large firm lawyers, and 24% of small firm lawyers.

So that’s how your colleagues are using social media in 2017. How does your social media use compare?

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive web-based law practice management software for the modern law firm. She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at niki@mycase.com