An interesting article describing the use of DropSmack to target networks via DropBox. In addition to broader considerations lawyers should consider before using cloud services, developments like this highlight the need for education regarding technology and security.
For-profit Arizona law firms may use the .org domain name suffix as long as the website is otherwise not false or misleading. See Arizona Ethics Op. 11-04 (December 2011).
California lawyers may maintain a virtual law office in the cloud where communications with the client, and storage of and access to all information about the client’s matter, are conducted solely via the internet using a third-party’s secure servers. The lawyer may be required to take additional steps to confirm that she is fulfilling her ethical obligations due to distinct issues raised by the VLO and its operation. See California Formal Eth. Op. 2012-184 (May 2012).
Oregon lawyers may access publicly available information on social networking sites, can request access to non-public information if the person is not represented by counsel in the matter, and may in limited circumstances advise or supervise an agent to access non-public information under Oregon’s Covert Activity Exception (Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b)). See Oregon State Bar Eth. Comm. Op. 2013-189 (Feb 2013) (note there may be an issue seeing the full opinion).
A California lawyer’s lawsuit against on online legal service provider alleging unauthorized practice of law withstood a demurrer. See Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services, Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. No. G046778 (Mar 14, 2013).
An interesting, perhaps troubling, issue raised with respect to security of certain mobile devices. Read more about Carrier IQ (http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/how-much-of-your-phone-is-yours-20111115/, http://androidsecuritytest.com/features/logs-and-services/loggers/carrieriq/carrieriq-part2/, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/secret-software-logging-video. A somewhat long video of how this works is available here. http://tinyurl.com/cwcyjoc. Although there will likely be more articles about this in the media in the future, this highlights potential security and related issues for users of mobile devices.
The story about what it portrays as a growing use of social media by debt collectors is here.
The story with a link to the court’s order disqualifying the lawyers who read the misdirected e-mail is here.
California Formal Opinion 2010-179 outlines the lawyer’s duties when transmitting or storing confidential client information when the underlying technology may be susceptible to unauthorized access by third parties. An attorney’s duties of confidentiality and competence require the attorney to take appropriate steps to ensure that his or her use of technology in conjunction with a client’s representation does not subject confidential client information to an undue risk of unauthorized disclosure. Because of the evolving nature of technology and differences in security features that are available, the attorney must ensure the steps are sufficient for each form of technology being used and must continue to monitor the efficacy of such steps.
The article is here.
An article and link to the proposed amendment to emphasize that communication about a case is off limits whether on the Internet or not is here. Trial lawyers should consider asking for an instruction like this no matter where the venue.
The article with links to the proposal are here. To avoid getting any Kentucky readers in trouble, please don’t blog about this! 
The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 issued two papers: “Client Confidentiality and Lawyers’ Use of Technology”, and “Lawyers’ Use of Internet Based Client Development Tools”. Please e-mail your responses by December 15, 2010, to Senior Research Paralegal Natalia Vera at veran@staff.abanet.org of may be posted to the Commission’s website.
The opinion is here.
The issue resolved in City of Ontario v. Quon, __ US __ (2010), turned on whether a police officer’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his employer, the police department, reviewed text messages on his pager for legitimate business reasons. The Court held that the search was reasonable.
While criminal law is not our forte, this case has potentially enormous significance for privilege in electronic communications. At this time, a wave of cases addressing whether an employer, or (much more significantly), a third party, e-mails sent from an e-mail account maintained at a business where that business as an enforceable policy providing that personal e-mails are monitored and not confidential can, nonetheless, be claimed as privileged. Although the issue typically arises in employee-employer litigation, where the employer wants access to e-mails sent from the employee to his lawyer, the principle that privilege is waived would apply where a third-party seeks access as well.
Quon will likely influence this body of law, as well. Stay tuned.
(112)
(1)
(15)
(20)
(58)
(4)
(2)
(6)
(16)
(51)
(90)
(14)
(8)
(18)
(11)
(8)
(19)
(69)
(40)
(64)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(1)
(3)
(36)
(3)
(39)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(24)
(12)
(63)
(6)
(12)
(15)
(12)
(3)
(22)
(15)
(2)
(107)
(1)
(2)
