Web/Tech

Top resources for lawyers seeking technology competence

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

*****

Top resources for lawyers seeking technology competence

These days, technology is unavoidable. Even lawyers can’t escape it and now regularly use technology as part of their day-to-day practices. For example, according to the 2017 American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Survey Report (“Report”), 94% of lawyers now use smartphones for law-related purposes.

Cloud computing has made its mark, too, with more lawyers using it in 2018 than ever before. In fact, according the Report, the number of lawyers incorporating cloud computing software into their law practices increased by 14% over the past year. The survey results showed that after remaining stagnant at ~30% from 2013-15, and then increasing to 38% in 2016, there was a large increase in 2017, and that percentage jumped to 52%.

Of course, although the use of technology in law firms is increasing at a rapid clip, that doesn’t mean that all lawyers should be using technology. Instead, it’s up to each lawyer to determine if and when to implement technology tools into their practice. But in order to do that, you need to fully understand the technologies available to you. Otherwise you won’t be able to make educated decisions about technology.

Because of the rapid pace of technological change, the thought of learning about emerging technologies often seems overwhelming to lawyers, leading some lawyers to choose to ignore technology altogether. Rest assured, that’s a mistake, especially now that 31 states require lawyers to maintain technology competence as part of their ethical obligations, of which New York is one.

Since ignoring technology isn’t an option, here are some resources to help you learn about the latest legal technology options so that you can make educated choices about implementing technology into your law firm.

First, there’s a great book focused on helping solo and small firm lawyers to make wise decisions about technology tools for their law office, “The 2018 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide,” which is published by the American Bar Association. This book is written by legal technology experts and is full of the information solo and small-firm lawyers need in order to make knowledgeable, informed decisions about law office technology. The authors — Attorney Sharon Nelson, Certified Information Systems Security Professional John Simek, and Digital Forensics Examiner Michael Maschke — cover a vast range of hardware and software tools, provide a wealth of information and tips on choosing the right technology for your firm, and offer their perspective on the impact of emerging technologies on the practice of law.

Blogs are another great resource for lawyers seeking to learn about legal technology. However, there are a lot of blogs out there, so choosing which ones to follow isn’t always easy. To get you started, here are some of my favorite legal technology blogs.

First, there are the legal technology columns at Above the Law. These columns are written by a number of different legal technology bloggers here (myself included), and are always informative and cover a variety of legal technology issues.

Next, a blog that has been around since 2002: Bob Ambrogi’s LawSites, which provides news about the legal tech industry and lots of great advice for lawyers seeking to learn more about using technology in their practices.

Other popular legal technology blogs to consider include: 1) Future Lawyer, written by the always-knowledgable Florida litigator Rick Georges; 2) Technologist, a group blog; 3) Divorce Discourse, where attorney Lee Rosen shares technology and law practice management advice; 4) Law Practice Tips, a blog chock full of wisdom from Jim Calloway, an attorney and the Director of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Management Assistance Program; 5) iPhone JD, where attorney Jeff Richardson covers all things Apple-related, including iPhones and iPads; 6) Ride the Lightening, which covers a variety of interesting legal technology issues and is authored by lawyer Sharon Nelson, who offers her opinion on the effect of legal technology on the practice of law; and 7) the MyCase blog, where I regularly write about a host of legal tech issues.

So now that you know where to turn to learn all about legal technology, what are you waiting for? Start reading some of these resources today, and you’ll be well on your way to the technology competence needed to make the right legal technology choices for your law firm.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, intuitive, powerful 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.black@mycase.com.


New York Court of Appeals on discoverability of Facebook messages

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

*****

New York Court of Appeals on discoverability of Facebook messages

For litigators, social media platforms have increasingly become an invaluable source of evidence. So it’s not surprising that discovery disputes often arise regarding the scope of requests for social media-related information.

Last month, one of those discovery disputes reached the New York Court of Appeals in a negligence case relating to injuries that the plaintiff suffered after a fall from a horse. In Forman v. Henkin, the plaintiff alleged that the injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant and owner of the horse. During the course of discovery, the defendant sought access to the plaintiff’s entire Facebook account - including information that was located behind the privacy wall that could be seen only be the plaintiff’s “friends” and, presumably, private Facebook messages as well - after she’d made reference to the Facebook data during a deposition. At issue was whether the information behind the Facebook privacy wall was relevant to the issues at hand and thus discoverable.

At the outset, the Court wisely acknowledged that that the online was no different than the offline when it came to the application of the standards governing discovery requests: “While Facebook – and sites like it – offer relatively new means of sharing information with others, there is nothing so novel about Facebook materials that precludes application of New York’s long-standing disclosure rules to resolve this dispute.”

Next, the Court clarified that the appropriate determination to be made when a party seeks evidence found on social media platforms is whether the information is relevant to the issues in the case. The court explained, “New York discovery rules do not condition a party’s receipt of disclosure on a showing that the items the party seeks actually exist; rather, the request need only be appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information…In many if not most instances, a party seeking disclosure will not be able to demonstrate that items it has not yet obtained contain material evidence. Thus, we reject the notion that the account holder’s so-called ‘privacy’ settings govern the scope of disclosure of social media materials.”

The Court cautioned, however, that a discovery request for social media-related information does not trigger mandatory disclosure of all posts. The Court then turned to an offline equivalent to make its point: “Directing disclosure of a party’s entire Facebook account is comparable to ordering discovery of every photograph or communication that party shared with any person on any topic prior to or since the incident giving rise to litigation – such an order would be likely to yield far more nonrelevant than relevant information.”

The Court then explained that a 2-prong inquiry should be made by courts considering motions relating to discovery requests for social media data: “Courts should first consider the nature of the event giving rise to the litigation and the injuries claimed, as well as any other information specific to the case, to assess whether relevant material is likely to be found on the Facebook account. Second, balancing the potential utility of the information sought against any specific ‘privacy’ or other concerns raised by the account holder, the court should issue an order tailored to the particular controversy that identifies the types of materials that must be disclosed while avoiding disclosure of nonrelevant materials…Temporal limitations may also be appropriate – for example, the court should consider whether photographs or messages posted years before an accident are likely to be germane to the litigation.”

Unlike some other New York courts that have addressed these types of issues, the court did not differentiate between social media posts behind a privacy wall that are viewable by all of the person’s “friends” versus private messages sent only to one person. Instead, the court put the onus on the plaintiff to take measures to prevent disclosure of “sensitive or embarrassing” information explaining that “the account holder can seek protection from the court (see CPLR 3103[a]). Here, for example, Supreme Court exempted from disclosure any photographs of plaintiff depicting nudity or romantic encounters.”

Overall, this was an instructive opinion that provides necessary guidance to New York litigators seeking to use social media evidence in their cases. That being said, I do wish that a distinction had been made regarding the different types of posts on Facebook, rather than grouping all non-public posts made behind the privacy wall together. Private messages between two people are, as one Appellate Court judge has noted in the past, more akin to diary entries and thus may not be discoverable absent a greater showing of relevancy. Nevertheless, the highest court in New York has spoken. New York litigators, take note.

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.


Round Up: Robot Lawyers, Document Management Software, Productivity Tips, & More

SpiralI often write articles and blog posts for other outlets and am going to post a round up here from time to time (but won't include my Daily Record articles in the round up since I re-publish them to this blog in full). Here are my posts and articles from February 2018:


iPhone health app data used in murder prosecution

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

*****

iPhone health app data used in murder prosecution

If, like me, you’re a fan of the Netflix series, Black Mirror, then you’re well aware of the many ways that our digital footprints can potentially be used against us. In this series, the writers envision futuristic timelines where technologies currently available are taken to their extreme, resulting in disturbing, dystopian story lines, some of which have since come to fruition in one way or another.

The message of this series is clear: technology can greatly benefit our lives, but also creates the potential for unbridled violations of our privacy by governmental and corporate entities. It’s a delicate balance of interests that can easily go awry in the absence of careful, thoughtful regulation. And unfortunately, technology is moving so quickly that legislators simply can’t keep up.

One area where we’re seeing this delicate balance play out is in the courtroom. Data from mobile and wearable devices is increasingly being used in both civil and criminal cases.

For example, in mid-2015 I wrote about an emerging trend where data from wearable and mobile devices was being used in the courtroom (online: http://nydailyrecord.com/2015/08/14/legal-loop-wearable-tech-data-as-evidence-in-the-courtroom/). In that column I discussed two cases where Fitbit data was used: one where it was offered as evidence to support a personal injury claim and the other where it was used to disprove a complainant’s rape allegations.

Then, in early 2017, I wrote about another case where Fitbit data and other digital evidence was used to support the prosecution of a criminal matter (online: http://nydailyrecord.com/2017/04/28/legal-loop-fitbit-data-other-digital-evidence-used-by-prosecution-in-murder-case/.) In that case, a wealth of digital data was used by the prosecution to refute the defendant’s version of the events leading to his wife’s death, including cell phone records, computer data, text messages, information from Facebook, and his wife’s Fitbit data.

More recently, data from the iPhone Health App was used in court in Germany as part of a murder prosecution. In this case, the defendant was accused of murdering a medical student. The investigators were able to access his phone and obtain data from its Health App. Data collected by that app includes the number of steps taken, nutrition and sleep patterns, and a range of body measurements including heart rate. The app also provides geolocation data regarding the movement of the phone.

The data collected from the app corresponded to the prosecution’s theory of the case and its timeline of events leading up to and following the murder. The geolocation data provided evidence of the defendant’s movements throughout the evening in question, while the heart rate data indicated two different periods of “strenuous activity” which the app suggested involved the climbing of stairs.

A police investigator who was of similar size to the defendant recreated the events as it was believed they occurred and then compared the investigator’s Health App data to the defendant’s. The prosecution alleged that the similarities in the data indicated that the defendant was likely dragging the victim’s body down the stairs when his app indicated he was engaged in strenuous activity involving the climbing of stairs, thus supporting their theory of the case.

Once again digital data gleaned from a mobile device was used in court in an attempt to convict an accused rapist and murderer. The use of digital data for this purpose is something most people would likely agree with. However, there is a very real potential for abuse of the data our devices are collecting about us, as the Black Mirror series points out. Where we, as a society, choose to draw that line remains to be seen.

In the meantime, astute lawyers will educate themselves about the types of data available to them and will likewise be cognizant of the ways that data can be used in the courtroom to forward their client’s interests. In 2018, anything less would arguably be malpractice.

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.


ABA on Client Confidentiality in the 21st Century

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

*****

ABA on Client Confidentiality in the 21st Century

These days, news is shared in many ways, with online news outlets and social media sites contributing to the rapid - and sometimes viral - dissemination of information. Not surprisingly, details distributed online can sometimes trigger client confidentiality issues. For that reason, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility (“Committee”) recently addressed the duty of client confidentiality owed to former clients when information about a client becomes “generally known” after being shared online and through other news channels.

In Opinion 479, the Committee considered an exception to the client confidentiality relating to former clients. Specifically the Committee examined the exception found in Model Rule 1.9(c)(1) that permits lawyers to use information that is “generally known” to a former client’s disadvantage despite lack of consent from the former client.

As the Committee explained, Model Rule 1.9(c)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not use information relating to a former client’s representation ‘to the disadvantage of the former client except as [the Model] Rules would permit or require with respect to a [current] client, or when the information has become generally known.”

The primary issue considered in this opinion revolved around defining the concept “generally known.” At the outset, the Committee explained that there was a distinction between “publicly available” and “generally known”: “Unless information has become widely recognized by the public (for example by having achieved public notoriety), or within the former client’s industry, profession, or trade, the fact that the information may have been discussed in open court, or may be available in court records, in public libraries, or in other public repositories does not, standing alone, mean that the information is generally known for Model Rule 1.9(c)(1) purposes.”

Next, the Committee acknowledged that modern technology has made its mark on this concept, explaining that information “may become widely recognized and thus generally known as a result of publicity through traditional media sources, such as newspapers, magazines, radio, or television; through publication on internet web sites; or through social media.”

Next the Committee provided insight into how information becomes generally known in the context of a client’s chosen career: “(I)nformation should be treated as generally known if it is announced, discussed, or identified in what reasonable members of the industry, profession, or trade would consider a leading print or online publication or other resource in the particular field. Information may be widely recognized within a former client’s industry, profession, or trade without being widely recognized by the public.”

The Committee explained that in that context, knowledge of the matter by the general public is irrelevant. The Committee offered the insurance industry as an example and indicated that what truly mattered was whether the information had been broadly disseminated in that industry: “For example, if a former client is in the insurance industry, information about the former client that is widely recognized by others in the insurance industry should be considered generally known within the meaning of Model Rule 1.9(c)(1) even if the public at large is unaware of the information.”

The Committee then summarized its analysis and conclusions as follows: “(I)nformation is generally known within the meaning of Model Rule 1.9(c)(1) if (a) it is widely recognized by members of the public in the relevant geographic area; or (b) it is widely recognized in the former client’s industry, profession, or trade.”

This opinion offers much-needed clarification for lawyers regarding client confidentiality issues in the digital age. The times are undoubtedly changing as the online world speeds up and amplifies the dissemination of information. Certainly the end result is that the internet may muddy the waters a bit when it comes to lawyers’ ethical obligations. But as this opinion shows, despite the rapid pace of change, lawyers’ ethical obligations nevertheless remain constant, whether applied online or offline.

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.


Virginia Bar Nixes Online Attorney-Client Matching Service

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

*****

In recent months, I’ve written about a handful of ethics opinions from different jurisdictions whereby the ethics committees rejected the use of various online lawyer lawyer directories and lawyer-client matching services such as Avvo, Legal Zoom, and Rocket Lawyer. Virginia now joins their ranks with the issuance of Legal Ethics Opinion 1885.

At issue in this opinion was whether a lawyer may ethically participate in an online attorney-client matching service (ACMS) which operates as follows:

The prospective client selects the advertised legal service and chooses a lawyer identified on ACMS’s website as willing to provide the selected service. The prospective client pays the full amount of the advertised legal fee to the ACMS. Thereafter, the ACMS notifies the selected lawyer of this action, and the lawyer must call the prospective client within a specified period. After speaking to the prospective client, and performing a conflicts check, the lawyer either accepts or declines the proposed representation.

Under this arrangement, if the lawyer accepts the representation, the lawyer agrees to undertake a limited scope representation of the client. Upon completion of the representation, the ACMS deposits the legal fee into the lawyer’s operating account and then electronically withdraws a “marketing fee” from the same account as payment to the ACMS for participation in the matching service.

Although the Legal Ethics Committee did not specify the name of the matching service in the opinion, the setup described is the same as Avvo’s.

Of note, the Committee expressed concern regarding the fact that the ACMS, rather than the lawyer, controlled the attorney fees while the case was pending. According to the Committee, this arrangement circumvented the ethical requirements that lawyers are duty-bound to adhere to:

A Virginia lawyer who participates in the service rendered by the ACMS cannot comply with this Rule of Professional Conduct because she is not, and has never been, the custodian of the advanced fee. She has ceded control of that fee to the ACMS, which decides how to dispose of the client’s fees, both earned and unearned. A lawyer must not accept a legal matter under an arrangement which requires that she delegate the function of holding and disposing of the client’s advanced legal fees to a lay entity. In accepting such representation, the lawyer also violates Rule 1.16(a)(1), which prohibits any representation which would result in the lawyer’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Committee also determined that the business model of the ACMS involved improper legal fee sharing with a non-attorney and was thus unethical, despite the fact that the fee in question was referred to as a “marketing fee”: “Calling the online service’s entitlement a “marketing fee” does not alter the fact that a lawyer is sharing her legal fee with a lay business.”

For those reasons, and others, the Committee concluded that it was impermissible for Virginia attorneys to provide legal services through the ACMS in question:

(A) lawyer who participates in an ACMS using the model identified herein violates Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct because she:

cedes control of her client’s or prospective client’s advanced legal fees to a lay entity;
undertakes representation which will result in a violation of a Rule of Professional Conduct;
relinquishes control of her obligation to refund any unearned fees to a client at the termination of representation;
shares legal fees with a nonlawyer; and
pays another for recommending the lawyer’s services.

This opinion, and the others recently issued, do not preclude lawyers from participating in online lawyer-client matching services. Instead, it’s important to understand both the setup of the particular online service and the ethical rules of your jurisdiction prior to signing up for the service. Read any applicable ethics opinions that have been handed down in your jurisdiction and then carefully choose services with business plans that comport with your ethical obligations.

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.


Lawyers and Social Media in 2017

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

*****

Social media has been around for more than a decade. At first lawyers ignored social media, but over time, as it infiltrated our culture, they sat up and took notice. Today, more lawyers than ever use social media. Some use it for networking and marketing, while others interact online to showcase their expertise or gather valuable evidence and information to support their practices, among other reasons.

Regardless of how or why lawyers use social media, the statistics from the 2017 American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Survey Report show that, generally speaking, the number of lawyers using social media has increased year over year, which is in line with the increase in the use of social media by the general population as a whole.

For starters, the use of blogs by law firms is increasing, with large firms leading the way. 71% of firms with 500 or more attorneys maintain at least one blog (compared with 60% in 2016, 58% in 2015, and 62% in 2014), as do 71% of firms with 100-499 attorneys (compared with 52% in 2016, 53% in 2015, and 47% in 2014). Mid-sized firms with 10-49 attorneys were next at 38%, followed by small firms with 2-9 lawyers at 25%, and solo law firms at 15%. The practice areas within firms that were most likely to maintain a blog were employment and labor law at 33%, personal injury law at 32%, and litigation at 31%.

When it came to lawyers who personally maintained a blog for professional reasons, however, the numbers were flipped. Solo lawyers led the way: 15% of solo lawyers blogged, followed by 11% of lawyers from firms of 2-9 lawyers, 11% of lawyers from firms of 100 or more attorneys, and 10% of lawyers from firms of 10-49 attorneys. Of those lawyers, 43% have had a client retain their services because of their blogging efforts.

Moving on to social media, 77% of lawyers surveyed indicated that their firms maintained a social media presence. And, 81% of lawyers reported that they personally used social media for professional purposes.
Interestingly, the age group of lawyers most likely to maintain a personal presence on social media was 40-49 years olds (93%), followed by 40 and under (90%), 50-59 (86%), and 60 or older (73%). Lawyers with the following practice areas were most likely to personally use social media: employment/labor (89%), personal injury (84%), litigation (84%), commercial law (82%), and contracts (81%).

The most popular social network used by lawyers for professional purposes was LinkedIn, with 90% of lawyers reporting that they maintained a profile. Next was Facebook at 40% and then Twitter at 26%. Two lawyer directories were included in the Report, Martindale and Avvo, with only 21% of lawyers reporting that they used each platform.

Of those lawyers who maintained a personal presence on social media, 27% have had a client retain their legal services directly or via referral as a result of their use of social media. Solo and small firms lawyers were the most likely to be retained due to their social media presence. Lawyers in firms of 2-9 lawyers came in first in this regard at 33%, followed by solo lawyers (32%), then lawyers from firms of 10-49 lawyers (22%), and finally lawyers from firms of 100 or more lawyers (18%).

All in all, this year’s report provided lots of interesting data about lawyers’ social media use. Whether you’re a solo lawyer or are part of a much larger law firm, social media can be a valuable tool. My hope is that some of the statistics above will help guide you in making the best use of social networking. The trick is to use social media wisely, and ensure that the time you spend interacting online is both efficient and effective.

 

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.


Significantly More Lawyers Using Cloud Computing in 2017

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

*****

Cloud computing, where data is stored offsite on servers owned by third parties and accessed via an internet connection - has been around for more than a decade now. At first, lawyers have were slow to adopt to the concept even though it offers a host of benefits, including 24/7 access to law firm data, the convenience and flexibility of being able to enter billable time on the go, communicate and collaborate with clients in a secure online environment, and easily manage calendaring and tasks from any internet-enabled device - all at an affordable price.

Despite these benefits, lawyers use of cloud computing initially remained fairly steady at a little over 30% according to the the American Bar Association’s annual Legal Technology Survey Report. However, in 2016 those numbers began to increase and in the 2017 Report that was just released, that percentage increased substantially. These statistics comport with a prediction that I made in one of my Daily Record columns in December 2015:

“Cloud computing will be a different story in 2016. I predict that 2016 is the year that self-reported cloud computing use starts to increase. I make this distinction because over the past 2 years, according to a number of surveys, self-reported cloud computing use by solo and small firm lawyers has remained somewhat stagnant at around ~30%.…But as the concept becomes more familiar over time and lawyers have a better grasp of what cloud computing is and which software platforms and apps are built upon it, more lawyers will begin to report that they use it and/or realize that they’re using it already.”

As I predicted, after remaining stagnant at ~30% from 2013-15, with that percentage increasing to 38% in 2016. Interestingly, this year’s survey results showed a marked increase in the number of lawyers using cloud computing, with that percentage jumping to a whopping 52% for all lawyers in 2017.

Solo and small firm lawyers lead the way in cloud computing use according the 2017 Report. The survey results indicate that 56% of lawyers from firms of 2-9 attorneys used cloud computing (compared to 46% in 2016, 40% in 2015, and 35% in 2014), as did 56% of solo lawyers (compared to 42% in 2016, 37% in 2015, and 35% in 2014), 52% of lawyers from firms of 10-49 attorneys (compared with 33% in 2016, 23% in 2015, and 29% in 2014), and 42% from firms of 100 or more attorneys (compared with 20% in 2016, 17% in 2015, and 19% in 2014).

Lawyers were also asked to share which cloud computing programs they used in their firms. The 3 most popular legal cloud computing software programs used by lawyers were MyCase, NetDocs, and Clio. The 3 most popular non-legal cloud computing programs used by lawyers were Dropbox, iCloud, and Google Docs.

When asked why they chose to use cloud computing software in their law firms, respondents provided a vast array of reasons. The most popular benefit cited was easy browser access from anywhere (73%), followed by 24/7 availability (64%), low cost of entry and predictable monthly expense (48%), robust data back-up and recovery(45%), quick to get up and running (39%), eliminates IT & software management requirements (30%), and better security than can be provided in-office (25%).

It’s clear that we’ve reached the tipping point now that more than half of all lawyers use cloud computing in their law firms. For lawyers who have not yet made the leap to the cloud, the good news it that there are now more legal cloud computing software choices than ever before.

The trick is coo choose a well-funded, reliable vendor with staying power, so make sure to carefully vet each software provider that you’re considering. You can find a list of questions to ask third party vendors here: https://tinyurl.com/Questions4LegalVendors. It’s also important to check online for reviews from current customers. Finally, reputable vendors will also offer free trial access to their software so make sure to take advantage of that option and then test drive a few different software programs before committing.

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.


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.