1f4a
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Legalethics.com</title>
	<link>http://www.legalethics.com</link>
	<description>Focusing on the ethical issues associated with the use of technology by legal professionals</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 01:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Carrier IQ and security of certain mobile devices</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=507</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=507#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 02:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peterk</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Confidentiality</category>

		<category>Electronic Files</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<category>Internet Use</category>

		<category>Privacy</category>

		<category>Security</category>

		<category>Cellular phones</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An interesting, perhaps troubling, issue raised with respect to security of certain mobile devices. Read more about Carrier IQ  (<a href="http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/how-much-of-your-phone-is-yours-20111115/">http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/how-much-of-your-phone-is-yours-20111115/</a>, <a href="http://androidsecuritytest.com/features/logs-and-services/loggers/carrieriq/carrieriq-part2/">http://androidsecuritytest.com/features/logs-and-services/loggers/carrieriq/carrieriq-part2/</a>, <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/secret-software-logging-video">http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/secret-software-logging-video</a>.  A somewhat long video of how this works is available here. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/cwcyjoc">http://tinyurl.com/cwcyjoc</a>. 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.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=507</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pennsylvania Lawyers Should Consult With Client Regarding Receipt of Errant E-mail</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=506</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=506#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 04:33:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peterk</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Confidentiality</category>

		<category>Attorney-client relationship</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<category>Attorney-client privilege</category>

		<category>Pennsylvania</category>

		<category>Ethics Opinions</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#8217;s own client in deciding whether and how to use the information. Penn. Bar. Ass&#8217;n. Comm on Legal ethics and Professional Responsibility Op. 2011-10 (03/2/2011)

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;s own client in deciding whether and how to use the information. Penn. Bar. Ass&#8217;n. Comm on Legal ethics and Professional Responsibility Op. 2011-10 (03/2/2011)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=506</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Autocomplete Causes Misdirection: Court Disqualifies Recipients</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=499</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=499#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 12:10:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Hricik</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Confidentiality</category>

		<category>California</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<category>Internet Use</category>

		<category>Computer Use</category>

		<category>Attorney-client privilege</category>

		<category>Privacy</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=499</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The story with a link to the court&#8217;s order disqualifying the lawyers who read the misdirected e-mail is here.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The story with a link to the court&#8217;s order disqualifying the lawyers who read the misdirected e-mail is <a href="http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/12/email-oops-ends-with-gordon-rees-being-booted-from-case.html?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed:+legalpad_feed+%28Legal+Pad%29">here</a>.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=499</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Issues Ethics Opinion on Confidentiality and the Use of E-mail and Technology To Transmit Client Information</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=498</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=498#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:44:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Hricik</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Confidentiality</category>

		<category>California</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<category>Internet Use</category>

		<category>Computer Use</category>

		<category>Attorney-client privilege</category>

		<category>Privacy</category>

		<category>Rules of Conduct</category>

		<category>Ethics Opinions</category>

		<category>Discipline</category>

		<category>Security</category>

		<category>Cloud</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[California Formal Opinion 2010-179 outlines the lawyer&#8217;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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://ethics.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=wmqECiHp7h4%3d&#038;tabid=837">California Formal Opinion 2010-179</a> outlines the lawyer&#8217;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.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=498</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>
20b4
Proposed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure:  The Internet is Off Limits, Too, Jurors!</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=495</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=495#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:07:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Hricik</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Texas</category>

		<category>Ex Parte Communications</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<category>Discussion Groups</category>

		<category>Internet Use</category>

		<category>Computer Use</category>

		<category>Rules of Conduct</category>

		<category>Social Networking</category>

		<category>Social Computing</category>

		<category>Evidence</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 <a href="http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2010/12/proposed-amendments-to-tex-civ-pro-rules-make-facebooking-about-jury-duty-a-no-no.html">here</a>.  Trial lawyers should consider asking for an instruction like this no matter where the venue.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=495</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McCain Palin Learn Blackberries Contain Confidences</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=459</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=459#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:58:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Hricik</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Confidentiality</category>

		<category>Electronic Files</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<category>Computer Use</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=459</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve noted here repeatedly that lawyers must safeguard client confidences, and so this story from CNN caught my eye:  their campaign sold off a bunch of Blackberries to recoup some money, but they left all the data &#8212; email, home addresses, personal phone numbers, you name it &#8212; on the little gems.  Now, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve noted here repeatedly that lawyers must safeguard client confidences, and so this <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/12/15/de.la.cruz.mccain.palin.blackberry.cnn">story</a> from CNN caught my eye:  their campaign sold off a bunch of Blackberries to recoup some money, but they left all the data &#8212; email, home addresses, personal phone numbers, you name it &#8212; on the little gems.  Now, maybe it shows where Palin bought all those fancy clothes&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=459</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Interlocutory Appeal from Inadvertent Production of Emails</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=457</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=457#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:06:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Hricik</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Electronic Files</category>

		<category>e-Discovery</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=457</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Ninth Circuit decision breaks no new ground, but does remind lawyers that in general there will be no immediate appeal of inadvertent production issues, because both there is no &#8220;final decision&#8221; and because as a general matter there is no &#8220;collateral order&#8221; in terms of Cohen.  Truckstop.net LLC v. Sprint Corp., (9th Cir., [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This Ninth Circuit decision breaks no new ground, but does remind lawyers that in general there will be no immediate appeal of inadvertent production issues, because both there is no &#8220;final decision&#8221; and because as a general matter there is no &#8220;collateral order&#8221; in terms of Cohen.  <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/10/27/0735123.pdf">Truckstop.net LLC v. Sprint Corp.</a>, (9th Cir., No. 07-35123, 10/28/08).  The lawyers perhaps should have tried mandamus&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=457</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NY St. Bar Ass&#8217;n Approves Gmail Use Despite Contextual Ad Scanning</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=452</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=452#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:54:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Hricik</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Confidentiality</category>

		<category>Websites</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<category>Internet Use</category>

		<category>Attorney-client privilege</category>

		<category>New York</category>

		<category>Privacy</category>

		<category>Rules of Conduct</category>

		<category>Bar Association</category>

		<category>Discipline</category>

		<category>Ethics Walls</category>

		<category>Malpractice</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York State Bar Association concluded that lawyers could use gmail and comply with the duty of confidentiality  despite the fact that email is &#8217;scanned&#8217; by Google to place contextual ads.  The committee warned that this sort of unthinking, automated review was proper, but not human review.  N.Y. St. B. Ass’n. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New York State Bar Association concluded that lawyers could use gmail and comply with the duty of confidentiality  despite the fact that email is &#8217;scanned&#8217; by Google to place contextual ads.  The committee warned that this sort of unthinking, automated review was proper, but not human review. <a href="http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Ethics_Opinions&#038;TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&#038;CONTENTID=13652"> N.Y. St. B. Ass’n. Comm. Prof. Eth. Op. 820 (Feb. 8, 2008)</a>.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=452</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Screenshots Created by Yahoo Mail and Left on Hard Drive?</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=451</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=451#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Hricik</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Meta-data</category>

		<category>Confidentiality</category>

		<category>Electronic Files</category>

		<category>e-Discovery</category>

		<category>Attorney-client relationship</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<category>Attorney-client privilege</category>

		<category>Privacy</category>

		<category>Ethics Opinions</category>

		<category>Massachusetts</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nat’l Economic Research Assocs., Inc. v. Evans, LECG Corp., 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 337 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 3, 2006) is a fascinating case in various ways, and just came to my attention.  Apparently, when a user views mail on yahoo, it takes a screenshot of the mail which is stored on the hard [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nat’l Economic Research Assocs., Inc. v. Evans, LECG Corp., 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 337 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 3, 2006) is a fascinating case in various ways, and just came to my attention.  Apparently, when a user views mail on yahoo, it takes a screenshot of the mail which is stored on the hard drive. While it&#8217;s not as easy to later access as a temp file, apparently they reside on the hard drive.  I couldn&#8217;t find the opinion on line, but it was on westlaw.</p>
<p>Anyone who uses public computers or employer-owned laptops to communicate &#8220;in confidence&#8221; should examine this issue.  I&#8217;m not sure it&#8217;s accurate, but the court clearly stated that Yahoo, alone, left these ghost emails!
</p>

85e
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=451</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York City Bar Association Addresses Electronic File Copying and Retention</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=450</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=450#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Hricik</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Electronic Files</category>

		<category>e-Discovery</category>

		<category>Attorney-client relationship</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<category>Computer Use</category>

		<category>New York</category>

		<category>Ethics Opinions</category>

		<category>Bar Association</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Formal Opinion 2008-1 (July 2008), the Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York addressed various issues concerning the organization, delivery, and the ability to charge clients for delivery of electronic files after the end of a representation.  An earlier Wisconsin opinion on the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In <a title="Formal Opinion 2008-1" href="http://www.nycbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinions-local/2008-opinions/799-a-lawyers-ethical-obligations-to-retain-and-to-provide-a-client-with-electronic-documents-relating-to-a-representation-">Formal Opinion 2008-1</a> (July 2008), the Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York addressed various issues concerning the organization, delivery, and the ability to charge clients for delivery of electronic files after the end of a representation.  An earlier Wisconsin opinion on the same subject is <a title="Wisconsin Op" href="http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Wisconsin_ethics_opinions&#038;TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&#038;CONTENTID=48462">here.</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=450</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

0

