Lawyers and technology competency: Louisiana weighs in

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Lawyers and technology competency: Louisiana weighs in

In 2019, lawyers have a duty to stay on top of changes in technology. This requirement first appeared in 2012 when the ABA amended the comments to Model Rule 1.1 to indicate that technology competence is a requirement for lawyers. Specifically, Comment 8 was amended to include the following:

Maintaining Competence
To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.
Since then the majority of jurisdictions (36) have adopted this requirement.

In 2018 Louisiana joined their ranks in its own unique way when it amended its Code of Professionalism (which is a set of principles separate from its Rules of Professional Conduct) by adding the following two provisions regarding technology competence:

“I will use technology, including social media, responsibly. My words and actions, no matter how conveyed, should reflect the professionalism expected of me as a lawyer.”
“I will stay informed about changes in the law, communication, and technology which affect the practice of law.”

Notably, these two statements regarding technology differ quite a bit from the language that the other jurisdictions have incorporated into their Rules of Professional Conduct. While this choice of wording and the decision to include the statements in the Code of Professionalism rather than amending the Rules of Professional Conduct may at first blush seem insignificant, a recent ethics opinion issued by the Louisiana State Bar Association is indicative of a perspective on technology competence - and on technology itself - that differs substantially from that of other jurisdictions.

Under consideration in PUBLIC Opinion 19-RPCC-021 (online:
http://files.lsba.org/documents/Ethics/EthicsOpinionLawyersUseTech02062019.pdf), which was handed down in February, was the ethical obligations of lawyers who use technology. Importantly, in framing the issue, the Bar seemed to imply that lawyers do not necessarily need to use technology in order to practice law in 2019, and that if they choose to do so, only then do they have an obligation to understand it.

The focus of the opinion is on the many dangers of using technology, with an emphasis on the many risks lawyers face when doing so. The tenor of the opinion is evident from the very start when the Bar characterizes the approach taken any other jurisdictions in the following manner:

“The consensus is that if a lawyer is going to use technology, that lawyer has a duty to comply with Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.15 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers must use technology competently and diligently. (Emphasis added).”

Then towards the end of the opinion the Bar again suggests that using technology is a choice for lawyers:

“(I)f a lawyer chooses to use technology in the lawyer’s practice, basic issues must be addressed. (Emphasis added).”

Compare these statements to the explanatory language quoted above (that most states have adopted into the comments to their Rules of Professional Conduct):

“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

In the preceding sentence, knowledge of technology is part of the duty to maintain competence. Technology know-how is not optional and it is not something that a lawyer can avoid simply by choosing not to use technology.

In other words, the consensus regarding technology competence is not that lawyers must be competent only if they choose to use technology. Instead the consensus is that in 2019, lawyers must understand technology so that they can make educated decisions regarding whether and how to use it in their practices.

This is an important distinction since in 2019 it is impossible for lawyers to practice law without encountering - and thus necessarily gaining an understanding of - technology in one form or another. And the failure of lawyers to understand how a given technology works and how it will affect their clients’ matters is a violation of the duty of competence at best, and malpractice at worst.

For example, litigators need to understand how social media platforms work in order to assess whether social media evidence exists that would benefit or harm their clients’ matters. The failure to do so could arguably result in malpractice in some cases.

Similarly many jurisdictions are now requiring e-filing in some courts. A basic understanding of the concepts related to digital documents and e-filing, including proper redaction techniques, is needed in order to competently represent clients and timely file papers with the court.

For other lawyers, a basic understanding of ediscovery procedures is a prerequisite to competent representation of their clients. Similarly for lawyers handling matters involving potentially sensitive issues secure client communication options other than unencrypted email must be carefully considered in order to properly protect confidential client data.

These are only a few examples of how technology unavoidably overlaps with the practice of law. So, to put it mildly, I was extremely surprised by the tenor of the Louisiana opinion. Not only does it represent a marked shift from the approach taken by other jurisdictions - it seemingly flies in the face of the realities of practicing law in the 21st century. The proper framework for addressing the impact of technology on the practice of law and lawyers’ ethical obligations when doing so is not to ask if a lawyer will use technology, but when.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software for small law firms. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


When emojis and the law collide

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

When I started writing about the intersection of law and technology in 2006, emojis were a sidebar in the world of communication. Until the release of the first smartphone, the iPhone, emojis were typically used only in certain online chat rooms. But with the release of the iPhone in 2007, people were able to use emojis more often using various messaging apps. And then when iOS 6 was released in 2012, iPhone users were able to easily include emojis in Apple’s native messaging platform. From there, emojis become a common part of everyday communication.

Of course, as is often the case, whenever technological advancements occur - especially in the realm of communications - a notable impact on legal proceedings soon follows. For example, in 2011 I wrote a column focused on a witness intimidation case covered in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. It was a federal court case where the defendant was alleged to have “poked” someone on Facebook, and in doing so was alleged to have intimidated a witness. The judge conducting the arraignment admitted that he lacked sufficient knowledge regarding the nature of a Facebook poke, as did the attorneys appearing on the matter. The judge then asked the courtroom spectators if anyone could explain the concept and refused to move forward with the arraignment until he was satisfied by the explanation provided by a reporter who happened to be in the courtroom.

That was the very first time I had encountered a report of social media impacting a criminal matter so I found it to be of great interest. Of course, since 2011, social media references in court cases have increased exponentially. Notably, that same phenomenon is now occurring with emojis as they become commonplace in many of our digital communications, and references to emojis and emoticons in court cases have increased significantly in recent years.

In 2004, there was a single case that referenced the word “emoticon.” Fast forward to 2012, and there were 7. In 2015, there were 15 cases that referenced either the terms “emoji” or “emoticon,” and last year that number had increased to 53. (For a full list of references see this post.)

The most recent case (from March 12th) that references the term “emoji” appeared in a California Court of Appeal case that also involved allegations of intimidating a witness. In People v. Smith, 2019 WL 1122768, at issue was whether the evidence, which included Facebook comments that included emojis, was sufficient to convict the defendant of intimidating a witness.

The Court concluded that the emoji evidence at issue supported the defendant’s conviction of intimidating the witness, “T.R.,” a 15-yo victim in a pimping case:

“The comments contained emojis of rodents. The later comments, following T.R.'s other name, “[T.W.],” included gunshot emojis, gun emojis, and the statement, ‘share my post.’ The four gunshot emojis and three gun emojis were evidence Smith was seeking to encourage other viewers of his Facebook page to shoot T.R. His comments included three emojis, each representing a hand with the thumb and forefinger touching and the other fingers pointed up, representing the letter “b,” a symbol of the Bacc Street Crips. The jury could have reasonably concluded from the photograph and comments that Smith intended to communicate that T.R. was a despised female who had told on Washington, and she was therefore a “rat” or snitch whom members of the gang should kill to assure she did not testify against Washington at his trial.

Additionally, Smith “hashtagged” T.R., notifying her of the post. This evidenced an intent that she see the photograph and comments and cower accordingly, i.e., by not testifying against Washington at his trial.”

It’s undoubtedly a bit strange to read a court’s attempt to interpret the cartoon-like characters that are finding their way into our daily communications. But expect to see more of this - much more - as our use of electronic forms of communication continue to increase. Like it or not, emojis - and technology in general - are here to stay.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software for small law firms. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


Pennsylvania Supreme Court on ethically mining social media evidence

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Pennsylvania Supreme Court on ethically mining social media evidence

Social media can be a gold mine for litigation attorneys. There’s a wealth of information available online that can often be used to the benefit of your client at trial. The trick is knowing how to ethically access social media evidence. Because if you don’t fully understand the ins and outs of the various social media platforms and your ethical obligations, your attempts to obtain online evidence favorable to your client’s case could have the opposite result: it could be precluded from use at trial, and you could even face disciplinary action.

The latter is what occurred when a Pennsylvania attorney’s law license was suspended by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stacy Parks Miller, Miller’s license was suspended, in part, due to her deceptive behavior in creating a fictitious Facebook page in order to obtain evidence while serving as the Centre County District Attorney.

Specifically, it was alleged that Miller created a fictitious Facebook page in 2011, with the end goal being to curb criminal activity relating to the illegal sale of bath salts. The Facebook page was based on a fake social media persona and purported to be the social media account of a young woman who had recently dropped out of college.

After creating the page she sent an email encouraging her staff to send “friend requests” to others from the fake account in order to legitimize the fake account. Specifically she suggested that they use the Facebook account to “masquerade” and “snoop” on Facebook. While the account was being used by the District Attorney’s Office, “individuals represented in criminal proceedings either sent friend requests to the page or received friend requests from the page.”

In her defense, Miller asserted that the Facebook page represented a “proper law enforcement operation.” The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disagreed. The Board noted that the mere act of “having a third-person send a friend request to a represented party in order to gain access to the private portion of their profile violates RPC 8.4(c), and that the actions of Miller far exceeded that limited scope of impermissible conduct. Not only did she create a fake Facebook page, she provided her staff with access to it and actively encouraged them to use it to repeatedly interact with and connect with other individuals on Facebook who were suspected of engaging in illegal activities, some of whom were known to be represented by counsel."

Accordingly, the Board concluded that her actions were in violation of her ethical obligations. The Board explained that “(t)he Facebook page created by (Miller) and disseminated to her staff was fake and constituted fraudulent and deceptive conduct inn violation of RPC 8.4(c)…(Miller) induced her staff, both attorneys and non-attorneys alike, to engage in dishonest behavior and to imply disinterest in matters, without correcting any misapprehensions. The staff carried out (Miller’s) directives and used the page to “friend” individuals, some of whom were defendants. (Miller) enabled her staff to engage in deceptive conduct, without specific direction, for an unrestricted period of time. This conduct violated RPC 4.3(a), 4.3(c), 5.3(b), 5.3(c)(1), and 5.3(c)(2).” As such the Board recommended that her law license be suspended for one year and one day.

This is yet one more example of lawyers interacting online without fully understanding their ethical obligations. Certainly there is a wealth of information - and potential evidence - available on social media platforms, and in 2019, willfully ignoring its existence is arguably malpractice. But before attempting to access information posted online, make sure that you have full knowledge of how the platforms work and what your ethical obligations are in regard to accessing that data. Tread lightly and intelligently when mining social media for evidence, lest you face the same penalty as Ms. Miller.

 

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software for small law firms. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


Texas Bar weighs in on lawyers using cloud computing

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Texas Bar weighs in on lawyers using cloud computing

For nearly a decade now, I’ve been tracking ethics opinions that address the issue of whether lawyers can ethically use cloud-based software to store confidential client data. As a refresher, cloud computing is when you store your data on servers owned by a third party instead of on your law firm’s on-premise servers.

New York was one of the first jurisdictions to hand down an ethics opinion on this issue in 2010: Opinion 842. In that opinion, the Ethics Committee wisely concluded that “a lawyer may use an online data storage system to store and back up client confidential information provided that the lawyer takes reasonable care to endure that confidentiality is maintained.”

Since then, more than 20 other states have followed suit and weighed in on the issue of whether lawyers can ethically use cloud computing to store confidential client data on third party servers. And, in each opinion, the ethics committee concluded that it was permissible to do so.

To the best of my knowledge, it’s been a few years since a jurisdiction addressed this particular topic (which I would argue is a sign that the issue is fairly well settled at this point). So I was excited to learn from my friend and Rochester-based social media lawyer, Scott Malouf, that an opinion on cloud computing had recently been issued in a new state: Texas.

In September 2018, the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas issued Opinion 680. At issue in this case was whether Texas lawyers may “use cloud-based client data storage systems or use cloud-based software systems for the creation of client-specific documents where confidential client information is stored or submitted to a cloud-based system.”

At the outset, the Committee rightfully acknowledged that cloud computing use is pervasive: “Cloud-based electronic storage and software systems are in wide use among the general public and lawyers.”

Next, the Committee explained that online communication and data storage systems are no different than any other type of offline systems used for communication or document storage: “While wide usage of an information storage method or software document creation system is not, in itself, justification for its use by lawyers, alternative methods of information storage and document preparation also have an inherent risk of disclosure or misuse—just as a privileged letter to a client through the U.S. Postal Service (versus transmission through email) can be intercepted or accessed by third parties and a client’s file in a lawyer’s office may be susceptible to access or disclosure by unauthorized parties without the lawyer ‘knowingly’ revealing that information.”

In other words, there’s no such thing as absolute security, regardless of whether your law firm’s information is stored and shared online or off.

Next the Committee turned to the issue of whether lawyers can ethically use cloud computing. The Committee noted that the benefits of cloud computing were many, and that in most cases it was permissible for lawyers to store confidential client data in the cloud: “Considering the present state of technology, its common usage to store confidential information, and the potential cost and time savings for clients, a lawyer may use cloud-based electronic data systems and document preparation software for client confidential information.”

Of course, as is always the case when lawyers outsource the management of confidential client data to third parties, lawyers have an obligation to thoroughly vet the third party vendor. The Committee explained that the “reasonable precautions” that lawyers must take include: “(1) acquiring a general understanding of how the cloud technology works; (2) reviewing the “terms of service” to which the lawyer submits when using a specific cloud-based provider just as the lawyer should do when choosing and supervising other types of service providers; (3) learning what protections already exist within the technology for data security; (4) determining whether additional steps, including but not limited to the encryption of client confidential information, should be taken before submitting that client information to a cloud-based system; (5) remaining alert as to whether a particular cloud-based provider is known to be deficient in its data security measures or is or has been unusually vulnerable to “hacking” of stored information; and (6) training for lawyers and staff regarding appropriate protections and considerations.”

The Committee also noted that on rare occasions, certain types of client data may be too sensitive to store in the cloud and thus “(i)n some circumstances it may be appropriate to confer with a client regarding these risks as applicable to a particular matter and obtain a client’s input regarding or consent to using cloud-based electronic data systems and document preparation software”

Finally, and most importantly, the Committee noted that lawyers have a continuing duty to maintain technology competence: “(A) lawyer should remain reasonably aware of changes in technology and the associated risks—without unnecessarily retreating from the use of new technology that may save significant time and money for clients.”

So there you have it. Yet another jurisdiction highlights the benefits of cloud-based computing and green lights its use by lawyers.

It’s not surprising since a lot has changed in the past decade. So if you’ve been on the fence about using cloud computing in your law firm, it’s time to re-assess your position. Cloud computing use has become the norm, even for lawyers. And the benefits of using cloud computing are many: affordable computing power, 24/7 access to your firm’s information, increased mobility, and far more secure communication options than traditional email. If ever there was a time to switch to cloud computing, the time is now. What are you waiting for?

 

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software for small law firms. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


Round Up: Faxing for Lawyers, AI and the Law, Legal Billing Software, and 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 weekly Daily Record articles in the round up since I re-publish them to this blog in full). Here are my posts and articles since January:


When technology and law enforcement collide

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Law enforcement officers have no problem using the latest and greatest technologies to police the people, whether it’s using facial recognition tools, cellphone geolocation data, or recordings obtained from smartphone technologies such as Amazon’s Alexa. But it seems that when the people use the very same tools to police the police - well, that simply won’t do.

For example, we know that the police typically don’t like being recorded while effecting an arrest and will often order bystanders to refrain from doing so, and have even been known to take custody of devices and delete data from them. Along the same lines, law enforcement has never been a fan of a more mundane and less tech-savvy practice that many motorists engage in: flashing their headlights in order to warn other motorists of a speed trap.

So I wasn’t surprised to learn that the New York Police Department had set its sights on the 21st century version of headlight flashing: the Waze app’s user-submitted reports regarding speed taps and DWI checkpoints.

According to the New York Times, last weekend the NYPD’s acting deputy commissioner for legal matters, Ann P. Prunty, sent a letter on behalf of the NYPD to Google (the owner of the Waze app) to demand that it remove that feature from Waze. The rationale for this request was as follows: “The posting of such information for public consumption is irresponsible since it only serves to aid impaired and intoxicated drivers to evade checkpoints and encourage reckless driving. Revealing the location of checkpoints puts those drivers, their passengers, and the general public at risk.”

If Google refused to do so, Prunty indicated that the NYPD would pursue all legal remedies available to it to achieve its goal of preventing people from sharing said information via the app.

For starters, this request, if granted, likely infringes on the First Amendment rights of ordinary citizens, but that’s an issue that the courts will have to grapple with if legal remedies are indeed pursued by the NYPD. That’s certainly an interesting issue, but what I found to be even more interesting was that the letter was a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction to technology.

I say this because people have always found ways to share information regarding the arrival or location of the police. There are code words used by kids on the street that warn others when police appear on the scene. And, as mentioned above, motorists flash their headlights after encountering a speed trap to warn other drivers. Similarly, truck drivers use their CB radios to communicate the whereabouts of police to other truckers. And certainly cell phones have been used by motorists for the purposes of sharing information via phone calls for that same reason as well.

In other words, citizens have always found ways to communicate with one another with the end goal being to avoid police interaction. But in the past they’ve used the only methods available to them at the time, which were certainly less effective and not nearly as far-reaching as an app like Waze.

Enter technology and the power of social media, and suddenly ordinary citizens have the ability to broadcast their observations of law enforcement activities far and wide. It’s important to note, however, that while the efficiency and reach of the information sharing has improved, the essence of it is the same. It’s simply people communicating with one another regarding situations that are occurring in plain sight. Technology and social media have simply amplified their voices.

In other words, as I’ve oft repeated in this column since 2008, the medium doesn’t change the message. And in this case, I would argue that the message falls within the parameters of free speech, and that imminent danger exception does not apply. The fact that the message is now more easily transmitted to a larger number of people doesn’t change that fact.

The NYPD seems to have lost sight of the fact that the online is simply an extension of the offline. Should it follow through with its threat to litigate, this will be an interesting case to follow. I strongly suspect that First Amendment rights will trump law enforcement’s knee jerk reaction to technological innovation, but only time -and a lawsuit - will tell if I’m right.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software for small law firms. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


Federal judge on whether biometric access to phones requires a warrant

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

A decade ago, smartphones were in their infancy. The iPhone was not even a year old and widespread adoption had not yet occurred. Many were suspicious of the touch screen interface, and lawyers in particular clung to the idea that they required the tactile feel of a traditional keyboard.

Fast forward to 2019, and smartphones are commonplace even amongst lawyers. In fact, according to the latest ABA Legal Technology Survey Report, 95% of all lawyers use smartphones on a daily basis.

Not only has smartphone usage grown over the past decade, so too have the technologies that power the devices. Today’s smartphones are essentially minicomputers with memory and processing power comparable to that of some desktop and laptop computers. For that reason, smartphones have become indispensable and people store all sorts of information on them.

It’s no surprise then that law enforcement routinely seeks access to smartphones of suspected criminals. Of course, constitutional protections still apply. For example, for a number of years now, it has been generally accepted that law enforcement cannot require you to provide the password to your smartphone, since doing so is compelled testimony and thus falls under the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

However, with the release of smartphones with biometric unlocking features, the waters were muddied. Many courts subsequently concluded that the biometric data used to unlock phones (ie. fingerprints and faces) is not inherently testimonial and thus requiring a defendant to open a device using biometric data does not violate the Fifth Amendment.

The tide may be turning, however, with the release of a recent federal district court decision on January 10th. Northern District of California Magistrate Judge Candice A Westmore considered this very issue and issued an important ruling in The Matter of the Search of a Residence In Oakland, California (online: https://tinyurl.com/ycs4wdy7). Specifically, the Court considered whether law enforcement should be granted a search warrant that required any individual present at the time of the search could be compelled to “press a finger (including a thumb) or utilize other biometric features, such as facial or iris recognition, for the purpose of unlocking the digital devices found in order to permit a search of the contents…”

In reaching its decision, the Court first concluded that the search request was overly broad, and that there was insufficient probable cause to: 1) compel anyone other than the suspects to unlock their devices or 2) to seize the device of anyone other than the suspects who were present at the time of the search.

Next the Court turned to the issue of whether the suspects could be required to provide biometric data to unlock any devices that were reasonably believed to belong to the suspects. At the outset the Court wisely noted that because of the rapid pace of technological change, courts must adopt rules that take into account more sophisticated technologies that currently exist or are in development and that courts “have an obligation to safeguard constitutional rights and cannot permit those rights to be diminished merely due to the advancement of technology.”

The Court then turned to ascertaining whether providing biometric data is a testimonial act, and concluded that it was: “(A) biometric is analogous to the nonverbal, physiological responses elicited during a polygraph test, which are used to determine guilt or innocence, and are considered testimonial.”

Finally the Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s 2014 determination in Riley v. California that today’s smartphones contain large amounts of incredibly private data regarding the owner of the phone and others with whom that person communicates: “smartphones are minicomputers…a search of which ‘would typically expose the government to far more than the most exhaustive search of a house. A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home, it also contains a broad array of private information never found in an home in any form…’”

For any number of reasons, this ruling is notable. For starters the Court acknowledged the undeniable effects of the rapid pace of technology on our culture. It was reassuring to read this thoughtful and insightful ruling, especially since it took into account the nature of rapidly evolving technologies and how they may potentially - and sometimes unintentionally - impact our constitutional rights. Also of import is the Court’s understanding of existing technology and its on-point comparison of it to more traditionally accepted testimonial evidence.

In short, I believe that the conclusion reached by the Court was the correct one. Let’s hope other courts follow suit.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software for small law firms. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


Must Lawyers Use AI in 2019? According to One Judge, the Answer is “Yes”

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Must Lawyers Use AI in 2019? According to One Judge, the Answer is “Yes”

Many of the lawyers I encounter are intimidated by technology. Rapid technological advancements have left them bewildered, and thus unwilling to even attempt to catch up. For those lawyers, turning a blind eye to technology and practicing law as if it were still 1995 seems like a viable option. After all, it’s worked so far, so who can blame them?

Of course, despite their chosen course of action - intentional ignorance - the steady beat of technology marches on. First it was the internet and email, then came social media and cloud computing, and now even newer technology trends are emerging, the most notable of which is artificial intelligence. And, like it or not, each of these is impacting the practice of law and the legal industry as a whole on a daily basis.

That’s why 35 states have now adopted the ethical requirement of technology competence, including New York. And, 2 states - Florida and North Carolina - now require that lawyers obtain legal technology credits as part of their CLE requirements. No doubt more jurisdictions will follow in their wake, since the effects of technology on the practice of law are inescapable and unavoidable.

If you remain unconvinced, then consider the judge’s opinion in Cass v. 1410088 Ontario Inc., 2018 ONSC 6959. At issue in this Ontario Superior Court personal injury case that was handed down in November was, in part, whether the fees billed by the defendant’s counsel were excessive.

One of the fees in dispute was a $900 fee for “legal research.” The judge did not look very kindly upon this fee, explaining that “$900.00 for legal research is problematic.”

The judge did not mince words when he opined on this issue, concluding that legal research is a basic skill and the topic allegedly researched was one with which the attorney for the defendant should have already had familiarity: 

“One assumes that counsel graduated with the basic legal knowledge we all possess.  This matter was unlikely his first blush with the world of ‘occupier’s liability’, and specifically the liability of landlords.  Counsel no doubt was familiar with the focus on the degree or control and access exercised by the landlord on the subject area.  So given all the base experience and knowledge, the need for ‘research’ by some anonymous identity is questionable.”

Next, the judge turned to the length of time that was purportedly required to conduct the research at issue, and importantly, this is where technology competence comes in. The judge notably asserted that had the attorney used an unnamed artificial intelligence research tool, far less time would have been needed to research the issue at hand (emphasis added):
"All in all, whatever this ‘research’ was would be well within the preparation for the motion.  There was no need for outsider or third party research.  If artificial intelligence sources were employed, no doubt counsel’s preparation time would have been significantly reduced.”

Although the judge failed to note which AI legal research tool he had in mind, one example of an AI-powered legal research product that might fit the bill is Casetext’s CARA which is an AI-enabled brief analyzer. CARA allows you to upload a brief or memorandum into CARA A.I., and it will then analyze the content of the document and provide you with relevant authorities.

Mark my words: When judges start reducing fees due to counsel’s failure to use AI-powered legal research, it’s yet another sign that the tide is turning. Technology is here, it’s impacting the practice of law, and, in the words of the all-knowing Borg (a race of aliens from Star Trek for those of you who aren’t Trekkies), resistance is futile.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software for small law firms. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


How Lawyers Are Using Social Media in 2019

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

How Lawyers Are Using Social Media in 2019

I’ve been covering lawyers’ use of social media in my column for the Daily Record since 2008. Back then, most lawyers believed that social media was a passing fad, despite my ardent assertions to the contrary. Some even believed that it was both unethical and unwise for lawyers to use social media. Convincing lawyers that social media was a phenomenon that they needed to learn about was an uphill battle, to say the least.

How times have changed. I first became convinced that a dramatic shift was occurring in 2011 when a reporter for the Democrat and Chronicle, Gary Craig, wrote an article entitled “Threat Alleged Via Facebook ‘Poke.’” As explained in the article, a federal judge was unable to proceed with an arraignment of a defendant who was accused of threatening a witness via a Facebook “poke.” The judge had no idea what a “poke” was, and neither did the attorneys before him, so he sought out - and obtained - the information he needed from a spectator seated in courtroom.

For me, that was a turning point. Because that’s when I knew that social media was actually impacting cases, and that lawyers were finally going to begin to take notice and want to learn about - and use -social media.

Fast forward to 2019, and these days, according to the latest Legal Technology Survey Report issued by the American Bar Association, the majority of lawyers and law firms are using social media for professional reasons in one form or another, whether it’s for business development and networking or for litigation purposes.

According to the Report, 76% of lawyers surveyed reported that their firms maintained a presence on at least once social network. And 79% of lawyers reported that they personally used social media for professional reasons. The reasons for their online interactions varied, with 70% citing career development and networking as their motivating reasons. 54% hoped to obtain clients as a result of their participation online. 48% used social media as a tool to increase their education awareness. And finally, 30% used social media to investigate their cases.

For those lawyers seeking to drum up business as a result of their online interactions, some were successful, with 35% reporting that they’d had a client retain their services directly or via a referral because of their social media use for professional purposes. 46% indicated that their online interaction never resulted in a new client, and 19% weren’t sure.

According to the Report, the most popular social media network amongst lawyers is LinkedIn. 46% of lawyers indicated that their law firms maintained a LinkedIn presence, and 65% reported that they personally maintained a LinkedIn profile for professional purposes.

The second most popular site is Facebook, with 42% of lawyers reporting that their law firms maintained a Facebook presence. 37% of responding lawyers shared that they personally used Facebook for professional reasons, and 90% indicated that they participated on Facebook for personal, non-professional purposes.

Next was Twitter, with 14% of respondents indicating that their law firms maintained a Twitter presence, and 25% reported that they interacted on Twitter for professional reasons using personal accounts. 1% of lawyers reported that a client had retained them as a result of their use of Twitter for professional reasons.

Then there are blogs, which have been around longer than social media, but have decreased in popularity with lawyers over the last few years. According to the Report, 24% of law firms maintain a blog. And, 8% of lawyers reported that they personally maintained a blog focused on a legal topic, down from 15% last year. Finally, 36% reported that a client has retained their services because of their blogging efforts, down from 43% last year. So legal blogging is clearly on the decline, but nevertheless is still a very viable business development tool.

So there you have it: lots of statistics on how lawyers are using social media. And, yes, unlike 2008, the majority of lawyers are learning about - and using - social media in 2019. Are you one of those lawyers? Is your law firm using social media? Are you? How does your social media use compare?

 

 

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software for small law firms. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


Round Up: Artificial Intelligence, Millennial Lawyers, and Law Practice Management Software

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 weekly Daily Record articles in the round up since I re-publish them to this blog in full). Here are my posts and articles from November 2018:


Louisiana court: Online anonymity doesn’t shield lawyers from ethical obligations

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Louisiana court: Online anonymity doesn’t shield lawyers from ethical obligation

Office water coolers used to be gathering places where people discussed current events and caught up on office gossip. But, like many other time-honored traditions, even water cooler conversations have been affected by technology.

Certainly these in-office discussions still occur, but much of the day-to-day discourse about current events has shifted to the online realm. Whether it’s on Facebook, in online forums, or in the comments that follow news articles, there are plenty of opportunities to comment on and share opinions about recent events. Notably, many of these comments can be made anonymously, and as a result, some people are less restrained about their opinions than they would be if their personal identities were publicly attached to them.

Of course, the perceived anonymity is often an illusion, since there are many different ways to go about determining who posted a particular comment, should the need arise to do so. That’s a lesson that was learned the hard way by Salvadore R. Perricone, an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Last month, the Supreme Court of Louisiana handed down an opinion, In re: Salvadore R. Perricone, No. 2018-B-1233, wherein the court considered whether Perricone violated his ethical obligations as a result of anonymous comments that he posted online between 2007-2014. Some of the comments related to trials for which he was the prosecuting attorney and others related to trials that his colleagues were prosecuting.

The anonymous postings included the following comments:

A statement that the defense attorney had “screwed his client!!!!,”and was just “as arrogant as [the allegedly bribed official] … and the jury knows it.”
During a federal civil rights trial involving the shooting of an unarmed man he wrote: “Perhaps we would be safer if the NOPD would leave next hurricane and let the National Guard assume all law enforcement duties.  GUILTY AS CHARGED.”
Regarding an indictment alleging conspiracy: “I read the indictment…there is no legitimate reason for this type of behavior in such a short period of time and for a limited purpose. GUILTY!!!”

When his comments were discovered and reported to a judge, an investigation was conducted and disciplinary charges were filed. After reviewing the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, the Supreme Court of Louisiana concluded that the appropriate sanction for Perricone’s conduct was disbarment.

The Court explained that Perricone’s actions were not innocuous: “When discovered, respondent’s actions caused serious, actual harm in the River Birch and Danziger Bridge cases and, most profoundly, to the reputation of the USAO. There was a potential for harm in the Jefferson and Gill-Pratt cases.”

According to the Court, disbarment was necessary for a number of reasons, not the least of which was to send a message to other lawyers to tread carefully when posting online about pending matters: “Respondent’s conscious decision to vent his anger by posting caustic, extrajudicial comments about pending cases strikes at the heart of the neutral dispassionate control which is the foundation of our system. Our decision today must send a strong message to respondent and to all the members of the bar that a lawyer’s ethical obligations are not diminished by the mask of anonymity provided by the Internet.”

In other words, the lesson to be learned is one that I often repeat: the online is simply an extension of the offline world. You don’t leave your ethics at the door when you enter the online realm. Think before you post - anonymously or otherwise - and refrain from commenting about any matters that you are personally involved in or about which you have inside knowledge. Your ethical obligations require it, and your law license depends on it.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software for small law firms. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


Round Up: Billing and Calendaring Software, Cybersecurity, and Millennial Lawyers

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 weekly Daily Record articles in the round up since I re-publish them to this blog in full). Here are my posts and articles from November 2018:


Supreme Court of Florida weighs in on judges using social media

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

 

Supreme Court of Florida weighs in on judges using social media

Whether judges should use social media has been a contentious issue for some time now. Early on, the consensus seemed to be that it was problematic for judges to do so, but over time that’s changed.

So, for example in 2012, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed this issue 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. But then in August of this year, the Third District Court of Appeal in Florida in in Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein v. United States Automobile Association, No. 3D17-1421 addressed the very same issue and reached a different conclusion. The court determined that it was departing from the holding in Domville and was declining to disqualify a judge as a result of his Facebook connnection with an attorney appearing in his court, since online friends are “not necessarily (friends) in the traditional sense of the word” and thus the fact that a judge is Facebook ‘friends’ with a lawyer for a potential party or witness does not necessarily mean that the judge cannot be impartial.

Just last week, the Supreme Court of Florida considered this case on appeal in Herssein and Herssein v. United States Automobile Association, No. SC17-1848. At issue was whether the lower court correctly determined that a Facebook friendship between a judge and an attorney appearing for the judge was not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis for disqualification of the judge.

In reaching its decision, the court first examined the concept of a “friendship,” explaining that simply being friends with someone does not indicate the level of closeness of the friendship: “It is commonly understood that friendship exists on a broad spectrum: some friendships are close and others are not...Thus the mere existence of a friendship, in and of itself, does not inherently reveal the degree or intensity of the friendship.”

Next, the Court applied this understanding to the concept of a Facebook “friendship” and concluded that not all Facebook friendships between a judge and an attorney appearing in their court require disqualification. The court examined the nature of Facebook connections, explaining that “(t)he establishment of a Facebook ‘friendship’ does not objectively signal the existence of the affection and esteem involved in a traditional ‘friendship’...(and) it is regularly the case that Facebook “friendships” are more casual and less permanent than traditional friendships.”

Accordingly, the Court reached the same conclusion as the majority of other jurisdictions that have recently addressed this issue and held that a Facebook friendship, in and of itself, was insufficient to warrant disqualification: “(T)he mere existence of a Facebook ‘friendship’ between a judge and an attorney appearing before the judge, without more, does not reasonably convey to others the impression of an inherently close or intimate relationship. No reasonably prudent person would fear that she could not receive a fair and impartial trial based solely on the fact that a judge and an attorney appearing before the judge are Facebook ‘friends’ with a relationship of an indeterminate nature.”

This is, I believe, the correct decision. As I’ve opined in the past, judges are simply people and have lives outside the courtroom which include friendships with attorney colleagues that pre-date their appointment to the bench. It flies in the face of common sense to issue decisions that prevent judges from interacting on social media with the very same lawyers with whom they are already connected and with whom they regularly interact in public. It’s heartening to see that the Florida Supreme Court agrees with this position and has issued a ruling that aligns with the realities of living in the 21st century.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software for small law firms. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


Two paths for 21st-century law firms: innovation or extinction

Stacked3Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Two paths for 21st-century law firms: innovation or extinction

When I graduated from law school in 1995, the world was a different place. Legal research still occurred in law libraries using books. Windows 95 had not yet been released and MS-DOS reigned supreme. The internet was just emerging on the scene and cell phones were few and far between.

Fast forward 23 years and times sure have changed, haven’t they? The effects of technology are inescapable and unavoidable. Nearly all aspects of our lives - and law practices - have been affected, from how we communicate and interact with others, to how share information, collaborate, and conduct business. And yet, despite the rapid technological advancements, many lawyers continue to practice law just as they did in 1995.

Now, this isn’t necessarily surprising. Ours is a precedent-based profession and predicting the future based on what happened in the past has historically proven to be a very successful way of doing business.

Unfortunately, that methodology is proving to be acutely ineffective in the 21st century given the tremendous and unprecedented rates of technological change. Never before has the world experienced such an incredible rate of change at such a fast pace.

The inescapable result of the impact of technology on the legal industry is that lawyers must innovate in order to survive. Unfortunately, due to the unique characteristics exhibited by most lawyers, innovation is a surprisingly difficult task to accomplish.

According to Michele DeStefano, author and Professor of Law at the University of Miami, the personality traits of lawyers often stand in the way of an innovative mindset. In her recently published book, “Legal Upheaval: A Guide to Creativity, Collaboration, and Innovation in the Law” she explains that it’s not easy for lawyers to innovate. This is in part due to the innate qualities of the types of people drawn to the law and in part due to our training.

For starters, lawyers tend to be skeptical. In fact, according to DeStefano, we’re nearly twice as skeptical as the general public. We’re also less trusting than the general public, which is no surprise given our high rates of skepticism.

Unfortunately, lawyers aren’t a very resilient bunch either, with 90 percent of us scoring in the bottom 50 percent when it comes to character resilience. We’re also more introverted than most, with 60% of us qualifying as introverts. Finally, as a group we tend to be very risk averse, a trait that flies in the face of innovation.

In other words, as DeStefano explains, “The lawyer’s temperament…is the opposite of what is required to… innovate — to creatively, collaboratively problem find and solve.”

Does that mean it’s hopeless? Is it impossible for lawyers to innovate? Of course not! The trick is to work hard to change your mindset. DeStefano offers strategies in her book that designed to do just that, so you might want to look into getting a copy.

In addition, take steps to learn about technology and how it’s impacting the practice of law. Subscribe to a few technology blogs, buy a few more books, attend technology CLEs, and approach technology with an open mind.

One book to consider reading is “Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction To Your Future.” In this book, Richard Susskind predicts how technology will affect the legal industry as a whole in the coming years and offers advice for lawyers seeking to thrive in the new world order.

Susskind explains that adopting technology will be one of the primary drivers of success for law firms seeking to gain a competitive edge: “One key challenge for the legal profession…is to adopt new systems earlier; to identify and grasp the opportunities afforded by emerging technologies. We need, as lawyers, to be open-minded because we are living in an era of unprecedented technological changes in what our machines can actually do.”

The bottom line: Technology is not your enemy, and change is inevitable. Approach both with an open mind and embrace them. Ignoring technological change in 2018 simply isn’t an option.

Embrace change and innovate - or become extinct. The choice is yours.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase  law practice management software. She is 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 Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes legal technology columns for Above the Law and ABA Journal and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack or email her at niki.black@mycase.com. 


Round Up: Secure Communication, Cybersecurity, Podcasts for Lawyers, and 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 weekly Daily Record articles in the round up since I re-publish them to this blog in full). Here are my posts and articles from October 2018: