Web/Tech

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.


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


Washington Bar Association allows virtual law offices

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

*****

Washington Bar Association Allows Virtual Law Offices

The Washington State Bar Association wasn’t the first bar to consider the ethics of lawyers practicing law from virtual law offices and it won’t be the last. It did, however, write one of the more sensible opinions on this phenomenon, Advisory Opinion 201601.

The reasonable tone was set from the very outset, when the Committee on Professional Ethics explained that the phenomenon of lawyers practicing law from outside of their offices was not a new one and was simply a sign of changing times: “Increasing costs of doing business, including the costs associated with physical office space, have motivated lawyers to rethink how they deliver legal services. Many lawyers are choosing to do some or all of their work remotely, from home or other remote locations. Advances in the reliability and accessibility of on-line resources, cloud computing, and email services have allowed the development of the virtual law office, in which the lawyer does not maintain a physical office at all. Although this modern business model may appear radically different from the traditional brick and mortar law office model, the underlying principles of an ethical law practice remain the same.”

Next, the Committee turned to the requirement in some jurisdictions that a law firm must have a physical office address, noting that Washington has no such rule. And, unlike some other states, there is no need for Washington lawyers to include a physical address on lawyer advertising, “(a)s long as it is not deceptive or misleading…(a) lawyer may use a post office box, private mail box, or a business service center as an office address in advertisements.” Similarly, lawyers must also refrain form misleading colleagues and others - through communications or otherwise - into believing that the lawyer is part of a brick and mortar firm.

The Committee then moved on to addressing the ethics of virtual lawyers storing all firm data online, such as in a legal practice management system, and concluded that lawyers may ethically store confidential client data online “as long as the lawyer takes reasonable care to ensure that the information will remain confidential and the information is secure from risk of loss.”

Factors that the Committee suggested lawyers take into consideration when using cloud computing software in their virtual law firm included:

Lawyers have a duty of general technology competence
Lawyers must thoroughly vet cloud computing vendors to ensure data is stored securely
Lawyers must ensure that there are sufficient data backup procedures in place
The agreement with the vendor should ensure that lawyers area able to retrieve law firm data in a readable format and that it includes breach notification clauses
Because technology can change quickly, lawyers have a continuing duty to monitor and review the adequacy of the vendor’s security procedures.

Importantly, the Committee acknowledged that in 2017, due to technology advancements, including secure online client portals, email is not necessarily the best way for lawyers to communicate with clients, regardless of whether the law firm has a virtual office or a brick and mortar office. Like the American Bar Association (in Formal Opinion 11-459) and the Texas Bar (in Ethics Opinion 648), the Committee warned against using email in some cases: “Lawyers in virtual practices may be more likely to communicate with clients by email. As discussed in WSBA Advisory Opinion 2175 (2008), lawyers may communicate with clients by email. However, if the lawyer believes there is a significant risk that a third party will access the communications, such as when the client is using an employer-provided email account, the lawyer has an obligation to advise the clients of the risks of such communication.”

In other words, the Committee issued a well reasoned opinion that acknowledged the rapid pace of technological change. As such, its determinations include elastic standards that will no doubt withstand the test of time. Well done Washington State Bar Association! Let’s hope other bars that have not yet addressed these issues will follow in your footsteps.

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.