Legalethics.com

North Carolina 2011 Formal Ethics Opinion 6 Opinion rules that a lawyer may contract with a vendor of software as a service provided the lawyer uses reasonable care to safeguard confidential client information. (1/27/2012).

The use of “daily deal” websites to sell vouchers to be redeemed for discounted legal services does not violate the Rule 5.4(a) prohibition on sharing of legal fees, but the attorney is cautioned that the use of such websites must be in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 and could lead to violations of several other rules if logistical issues are not appropriately addressed. See Ethics Opinion 11-05.

A lawyer may market legal services on a “deal of the day” or “group coupon” website
provided that the advertising is not misleading or deceptive and makes clear that no lawyer-client
relationship will be formed until the lawyer can check for conflicts and competence to provide the
services.See Opinion 897 (Dec 13, 2011).

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.

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 how to use the information. Penn. Bar. Ass’n. Comm on Legal ethics and Professional Responsibility Op. 2011-10 (03/2/2011)

The story about what it portrays as a growing use of social media by debt collectors is here.

When you use Google Docs, you give Google the following license to “Content” which is, basically, everything you put up:

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

Query whether this is ethical for lawyers to use?

The Seventh Circuit in U.S. v. Szymuszkiewicz affirmed conviction of an IRS agent who had put a rule in his boss’s Outlook that forwarded a copy to him of every e-mail to her.

The story with a link to the court’s order disqualifying the lawyers who read the misdirected e-mail is here.

It is here.

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.

A lawyer may use online cloud providers to store and back up client files provided that the lawyer takes reasonable care to ensure that confidentiality will be maintained in a manner consistent with the lawyer’s obligations under Rule 1.6.  Additionally, the lawyer should stay abreast of technological advances to ensure that storage remains sufficient to protect the client’s data and should monitor the laws of privilege to ensure that the online storage will not cause loss or waive privilege. See N.Y.S.B.A. Eth. Op. 842 (Sept. 10, 2010).