Focusing on the ethical issues associated with the use of technology by legal professionalsMon, 29 Apr 2013 01:07:04 +0000http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7enCalifornia Issues Ethics Opinion on Confidentiality and the Use of E-mail and Technology To Transmit Client Information
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=498#commentsSun, 26 Dec 2010 11:44:12 +0000David HricikConfidentialityCaliforniaE-mailInternet UseComputer UseAttorney-client privilegePrivacyRules of ConductEthics OpinionsDisciplineSecurityCloudhttp://www.legalethics.com/?p=498California 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.
http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=498Proposed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure: The Internet is Off Limits, Too, Jurors!
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=495#commentsThu, 16 Dec 2010 11:07:46 +0000David HricikTexasEx Parte CommunicationsE-mailDiscussion GroupsInternet UseComputer UseRules of ConductSocial NetworkingSocial ComputingEvidencehttp://www.legalethics.com/?p=495An 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.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=495Kentucky Proposes Fee, Regulation of Social Networking Posts
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=491#commentsWed, 01 Dec 2010 15:44:40 +0000David HricikAdvertisingAttorney-client relationshipDiscussion GroupsInternet UseComputer UseKentuckyRules of ConductBar AssociationDisciplineSocial Networkinghttp://www.legalethics.com/?p=491The article with links to the proposal are here. To avoid getting any Kentucky readers in trouble, please don’t blog about this!
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=491New York Professional Standards for Attorneys
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=155#commentsTue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000PeterkNew YorkRules of Conducthttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2007/02/01/new-york-code-of-professional-responsibility/The New York Rules of Professional Conduct effective April 2009. Additional Professional Standard resources are available from the State Bar.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=155NY St. Bar Ass’n Approves Gmail Use Despite Contextual Ad Scanning
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=452#commentsSun, 14 Sep 2008 14:54:28 +0000David HricikConfidentialityWebsitesE-mailInternet UseAttorney-client privilegeNew YorkPrivacyRules of ConductBar AssociationDisciplineEthics WallsMalpractice
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=452The New York State Bar Association concluded that lawyers could use gmail and comply with the duty of confidentiality despite the fact that email is ’scanned’ 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. Comm. Prof. Eth. Op. 820 (Feb. 8, 2008).
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=452New Hampshire Adopts Rule Protecting Prospective Clients who Unilaterally Email Law Firms
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=443#commentsWed, 20 Feb 2008 15:20:22 +0000David HricikConfidentialityWebsitesAttorney-client relationshipDisclaimersE-mailNew HampshireInternet UseComputer UseAttorney-client privilegeConflictsRules of Conducthttp://www.legalethics.com/?p=443Effective January 1, 2008, New Hampshire adopted a rule that clearly protects persons who, in good faith, e-mail confidential information to a lawyer from having the lawyer use the information against the prospective client. The comments to New Hampshshire Rule 1.18 provide in part: “In its version of these provisions, New Hampshire’s rule eliminates the terminology of ‘discussion’ or ‘consultation’ and extends the protections of the rule to persons who, in a good faith search for representation, provide information unilaterally to a lawyer who subsequently receives and reviews the information. This change recognizes that persons frequently initiate contact with an attorney in writing, by e-mail, or in other unilateral forms, and in the process disclose confidential information that warrants protection.”
The rule no doubt makes it more important for NH lawyersto use effective disclaimers on their web pages.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=443Wisconsin updates ethics rules, follows many ABA changes
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=400#commentsWed, 07 Mar 2007 03:59:43 +0000PeterkRules of ConductWisconsinhttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2007/03/06/wisconsin-updates-ethics-rules-follows-many-aba-changes/On Jan. 5, 2007, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued order 04-07 formally adopting changes to Chapter 20, the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, effective July 1, 2007. The Wisconsin Bar offers information about the changes.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=400Connecticut revises ethics rules, following many ABA updates; new filing requirement effective July 1, 2007
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=399#commentsWed, 07 Mar 2007 03:51:05 +0000PeterkAdvertisingConnecticutRules of Conducthttp://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2007/03/06/connecticut-revises-ethics-rules-following-many-aba-updates/The Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct have been modified and adopt many of recent changes adopted by the ABA. A redline version is available from the Connecticut Superior Court. These revisions become effective on January 1, 2007, except as follows:
Revisions to Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct were effective September 1, 2006
New Sections 2-28A and 2-28B and new subsection (e) of Section 2-27 become effective July 1, 2007
Note that Rule 7.2 (advertising) now requires electronic advertisements to be copied every three months on a compact disk or similar technology and kept for three years.
Importantly, Practice Book Section 2-28A, which takes effect July 1, 2007, requires filing with statewide bar counsel a copy of most advertisements. Section 2-28B provides a procedure for lawyers to request an advance advisory opinion concerning the propriety of an advertisement.See modified rules.
]]>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=399ACTEC Commentaries on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=418#commentsSun, 18 Feb 2007 17:43:12 +0000PeterkRules of Conducthttp://www.legalethics.com/?p=418The American College of Trusts and Estates Lawyers (ACTEC) Commentaries on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&p=418Revised Rules of Professional Conduct take effect Febrauary 1st
http://www.legalethics.com/?p=407#commentsWed, 10 Jan 2007 18:25:57 +0000PeterkRules of ConductDistrict of Columbia (D.C.)http://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2007/01/10/revised-rules-of-professional-conduct-take-effect-febrauary-1st/The revised D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct take effect Febrauary 1st. A markup of the Rules with the changes is available.