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.
Interesting piece here.
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.
Alabama lawyers can store client files in the cloud provided that they stay current with appropriate security and take reasonable steps to ensure that the provider protects the data. See Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Commn., Op. 2010-02. The opinion provides some details discussion of records retention requirements.
The article with links to the proposal are here. To avoid getting any Kentucky readers in trouble, please don’t blog about this! 
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.
A law graduate was held unfit to take a bar exam for the combined conduct of engaging in selling 300-500 Chinese knock-off DVDs and not disclosing the subsequent copyright infringement suit in In re Brown (Ohio May 5, 2010).
There’s a great story by CBS here concerning the fact that for the last eight years, most digital copies contain a hard drive that retains an image of the last 20,000 copies made. Law firms selling or otherwise discarding their copiers should consider treating them just like a laptop, and take appropriate steps to protect client confidences.
The story is here.
Kentucky judges may participate in social networking sites such as Facebook but a judge must carefully consider the nature of the relationship with an attorney. Judicial Ethics Opinion JE-119 (January 20, 2010).
The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee indicates that judges may not add lawyers who may appear before the judge as “friends” on a social networking site or permit such lawyers to add the judge as their “friend.” See Opinion No. 2009-20 (November 17, 2009).
There’s an article here about criminals using “anti-virus” software to plant trojan horses that let them intercept communications, and more.
There’s an interesting article on this subject here.
(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)
