by PeterK

Pennsylvania Lawyers May Use the Cloud and SaaS Solutions to Store Client Information

July 24, 2012 in Cloud, Electronic Files, Pennsylvania by PeterK

Pennsylvania lawyers may ethically allow client confidential material to be stored in “the cloud” provided the attorney takes reasonable care to assure that (1) all such materials remain confidential, and
…read more

by PeterK

Pennsylvania lawyers should not use coupon sites like Groupon to market legal sevices

January 14, 2012 in Advertising, Conflicts, Pennsylvania, Websites by PeterK

Pennsylvania lawyers should not use coupon sites to market their legal services. See Pennsylvania Ethics Op. 2011-027.

by PeterK

Pennsylvania Lawyers Should Consult With Client Regarding Receipt of Errant E-mail

July 11, 2011 in Attorney-client privilege, Confidentiality, E-mail, Pennsylvania by PeterK

A lawyer who is mistakenly copied on an e-mail between opposing counsel and their client, must notify the sender and consult with the lawyer’s own client in deciding whether and
…read more

by PeterK

Attorneys may need to make full disclosure when before accessing Facebook and social media sites

April 21, 2009 in e-Discovery, Ex Parte Communications, Pennsylvania, Social Networking, Websites by PeterK

The Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Guidance Committee addressed the question of an attorney trying to access Facebook and Myspace accounts of a third party witness in Ethics Opinion 2009-2 (March
…read more

Pennsylvania Addresses Client Ownership of e-Files and Related Topics

February 6, 2008 in Electronic Files, Pennsylvania by David Hricik

In Pa. B. Ass’n Comm. on Legal Ethics & Prof. Responsibility Formal Op. No. 2007-100 (2007), the committee in a thoughtful opinion addressed the complex issues of locating, finding, and
…read more

by PeterK

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court adopted a package of rules to allow for greater multi-jurisdictional practice

April 29, 2004 in MDP, Pennsylvania by PeterK

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court adopted a package of rules to allow for greater “multi-jurisdictional practice.”  See Rule 5.5 and 8.5.