lawtechTalk

02/06/2012

Featured Legal Cloud Computing Platform: ContractTailor

Now that my new book "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" is published, I've decided to occasionally highlight legal cloud computing platforms on this blog. These posts will introduce relative newcomers to the legal cloud computing world or showcase significant new features added to the more "seasoned" platforms (many of which I discuss in my book).

Today's featured platform: ContractTailor, a relatively new addition to the legal cloud computing market.

ContractTailor provides document creation software based in the cloud, somewhat similar to the new feature rolled out by Rocket Matter, a legal practice management platform, a few weeks ago and discussed in this prior post. One major difference is that ContractTailor is a standalone product. So you don't have to buy into a full fledged law practice management suite if that's not what you're in the market for. And, obviously, it's a different product, so the interface and features differ.

A few weeks ago, one of the co-founders of ContractTailor, Chilwin Cheng, walked me through a demo of the platform. I found that it offers a simple, understandable interface, although, as is the case with any new software, if will likely take some time to familiarize yourself with its features.

Because ContractTailor is cloud-based, it runs on any type of computer operating system and you simply need an Internet connection in order to access it. Using ContractTailor, lawyers can create many different types of documents, including contracts, statutes and bylaws, and resolutions.

One very useful feature of this platform is that it permits secure sharing and collaboration with clients or other authorized users, which is a especially important, since collaboration oftentimes occurs when drafting documents. And, the system that many laweyrs still use is less than perfect and involves the oftentimes confusing process of sending various drafts of confidential documents back and forth via email (which is an inherently unsecure method of communication even though it has been given the ethical green light by various bar associations).

ContractTailor also offers a unique search funtion that allows users to locate specific clauses and then insert them into the document that you are in the process of creating. As of now, document tagging is not available, which is unfortunate since it would be a very useful tool in terms of labeling and later locating previously created documents and/or clauses used in prior documents. Hopefully tagging will be added in the future, since it's a flexible way to classify and organize information in a way that makes sense to the user.

All in all, it's in interesting product and worth looking into if you're in the market for a standalone SaaS-based document creation system.

ContractTailor offers a 30-day free trial and if you decide to sign up, the cost is $39 per user per month. You can learn more about ContractTailor here.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and GigaOM Pro Analyst. She is the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at nblack@nicoleblackesq.com.

Posted at 12:50 PM in Cloud Computing, Document creation software, Legal Cloud Computing Software | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

02/03/2012

NY Bar Gives Guidance for Lawyers Seeking Clients Online

This week's Daily Record column is entitled "NY Bar Gives Guidance for Lawyers Seeking Clients Online."

A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

NY Bar Gives Guidance for Lawyers Seeking Clients Online

As of May 2011, more than 65 percent of adults in the United States participated on social media sites, according to the Pew 2011 Internet & American Life Survey. That’s a lot of people interacting and sharing online, and lawyers are beginning to take notice.

Understandably, as more people use social media, more lawyers are beginning to acknowledge the potential benefits of online interaction. However, as is the case with any type of interaction with potential clients, whether online or off, there are risks of unintentionally violating ethics rules regarding solicitation, advertising, inadvertently creating an attorney client relationship and more.

Fortunately, for New York lawyers seeking guidance on these issues, the New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics addressed some of these concerns in Opinion 899 (12/21/11).

This opinion answered two questions: 1) Whether lawyers may answer legal questions in chat rooms or on other online social media sites; and 2) If so, whether lawyers may also offer their legal services in the course of answering questions?

When addressing the first question, the committee compared answering legal questions on the Internet to writing for publications on legal topics. The committee cited Rule 1.7(r) and advised that “a lawyer may write for publication on legal topics without affecting the right to accept employment, as long as the lawyer does not undertake to give individual advice.”

However, the committee also referenced the Comments to Rule 1.7(r) and cautioned that lawyers should refrain from misleading members of the public into thinking that “a general solution (is) applicable to all apparently similar individual problems, because slight changes in fact situations may require a material variance in the applicable advice.”

Finally, the committee turned to the issue of whether answering questions online constitutes advertising and concluded that in most cases it does not, as long as the communication’s “primary purpose is to educate and inform rather than to attract clients.”

Next, the committee considered the second question: whether lawyers answering questions online may simultaneously offer their legal services. At the outset, the committee noted that although Rule 7(a) prohibits lawyers from soliciting clients in chat rooms or on other social media sites, Rule 7.3(b) specifically excludes responses provided at the “specific request” of a prospective client.

However, the committee then explained that “a legal question posted by a member of the public on real-time interactive Internet or social media sites cannot be construed as a ‘specific request’ to retain the lawyer … (but) if a lawyer’s primary purpose in answering a question is not to encourage his own retention but rather is to educate the public by providing general answers to legal question, then Rule 7.3(a)(l) does not prohibit the lawyer’s responses.”

The committee then addressed the proper course of action to take when, during the course of an online interaction, a prospective client makes a specific request to retain legal services. The committee concluded that it is ethically permissible for a lawyer to respond to the request, but if the forum in which the request was made is public, the response must be made privately and “outside the site … so that persons who did not request the proposal cannot see it.”

In other words, when engaging in public online forums, lawyers should focus on providing general information that serves to educate the public and, if the interaction leads to a request for representation, the lawyer should follow up by requesting a means to engage in a private conversation, whether by phone, email or in person.

As a side note, the committee specifically states in its opinion that “the lawyer may respond (to a request to retain the lawyer) with a private written proposal outside the site” (emphasis added). Thus, presumably, responding to a request for representation via a private message at the social media site would be unacceptable. This makes no sense to me, since a private message at an online forum is no less private than an email or phone call, and is not visible to those who did not request information regarding legal services.

It unclear to me whether the committee reached this conclusion on purpose, whether it was an oversight, or whether it was due to a lack of understanding of the private messaging function available at many social media sites, such as Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook. Nevertheless, according to my reading of this opinion, responding to a request for representation via a private message at a social media site may not be ethically permissible and should be avoided absent additional clarification from the committee in a subsequent opinion.

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed here or subscribe to receive email updates here.

Posted at 08:00 AM in ethics, Social Media, technology trends | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

01/30/2012

Legal Tech Round Up

Image by nishwater via Flickr

My legal technology colleagues regularly post about interesting tech trends, so here's a wrap up from recent weeks:

Simon Lewis over at Slaw wonders ponders whether legal entrepenuers are lawyers or marketers
At the Stem Legal Blog, Steve Matthews discusses the Law Society of England's recently released social media guide for lawyers
Ben Schorr offers some legal technology predictions for 2012 at his blog, Law Office Technology by Roland, Schorr & Tower
At the Small Firm Innovation blog, Carolyn Elefant questions whether we're regulating the wrong problem when it comes to the Cloud
Evan Brown discusses whether nonpirate users at Megaupload should be compensated by the government
If you're wondering how to stay relevant as a lawyer in the face of rapidly changing technologies, check out this 3-part series from 3 Geeks and a Law Blog

Posted at 08:47 AM in Cloud Computing, Round Up, technology trends, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New York State Ethics Committee On Lawyers Using Groupon-type Services

This week's Daily Record column is entitled "New York State Ethics Committee On Lawyers Using Groupon-type Services."

A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

New York State Ethics Committee On Lawyers Using Groupon-type Services

It’s been years since the economy was booming and although the recession is technically “over,” it sure doesn’t feel like it. Which is unfortunate for the legal profession since, when money is tight, the last thing people want to do is hire an attorney unless it’s absolutely necessary. For that reason, competition for those in the market for legal services can sometimes be fierce and many lawyers are seeking to market themselves as creatively as possible in an attempt to attract new clients.

Some are even turning to sites like Groupon, which are online platforms through which local businesses offer group discounts to potential customers. Through these sites, a business can offer customers the opportunity to purchase a service or product at a deeply discounted rate, so long as a minimum number of other patrons agree to purchase the service at that price. If the minimum number of people sign up, then the proceeds from the sale are split between the website and the business offering the discount.

In a previous column, I questioned the wisdom of lawyers using Groupon since, in my opinion, selling legal services alongside spa treatments or car washes does little to enhance the dignity of our profession.
Even so, lawyers continue to seek to advertise their services using sites like Groupon and for that reason, in Opinion 897 (12/13/11), the New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics recently grappled with the ethical issues presented when lawyers do so.

One interesting issue considered by the Committee was whether the money retained by Groupon constitutes an improper payment for a referral in violation of Rule 7.2(a). This rule provides, in relevant part, that “(a) lawyer shall not compensate or give anything of value to a person or organization to recommend or obtain employment by a client, or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in employment by a client.”

The Committee sought guidance from Comment 1 to Rule 7.2(a) which provides that it is permissible for a lawyer to pay for advertising and communications as permitted by the Rules. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that as long as the fees paid to websites like Groupon were reasonable, such fees were ethically permissible, since they are more akin to an advertising fee rather than a referral fee. This is because the website takes no “action to refer a potential client to a particular lawyer – instead it...carrie(s) a particular lawyer’s advertising message to interested consumers and...charge(s) a fee for that service.”

The Committee then examined a number of other ethical quandaries presented by advertising via Groupon, including the need to refund excessive attorney’s fees, compliance with advertising regulations and the risks of forming an improper or premature attorney/client relationship and concluded:“A lawyer may properly market legal services on ‘deal of the day’ or ‘group coupon’ website, provided that the advertisement is not false, deceptive or misleading, and that the advertisement clearly discloses that a lawyer-client relationship will not be created until after the lawyer has checked for conflicts and determined whether the lawyer is competent to perform a service appropriate to the client. If the offered service cannot be performed due to conflicts or competence reasons, the lawyer must give the coupon buyer a full refund. The website advertisement must comply with all of the Rules governing attorney advertising, and if the advertisement is targeted, it must also comply with Rule 7.3 regarding solicitation.”

Thus, although marketing your services via websites like Groupon may not be the most dignified way to advertise your services, doing so isn’t necessarily unethical.

Posted at 08:39 AM in Social Media, technology trends | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

01/26/2012

Pre-Order My Latest Book "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" [UPDATED]

UPDATE: You can read the Introduction here.

*****

My latest book, "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" is now available at the ABA's online store. You can pre-order it here.

I can't tell you how excited I am about this book! It includes a ton of useful information from leaders in the legal technology field, including:

The foreward, written by Richard Susskind
The ethics chapter, written by Steph Kimbro
Contributions from Robert Ambrogi, Ben Schorr, Allison Shields, Tomasz Stasiuk and more
Expert advice and practical commentary from Howard Lenow, Jonathan Jaffe, Finis Price, Ben Stevens, Russell Leisner, Steph Kimbro,Tomasz Stasiuk, Robert Krakow, Mason Boswell, Jack Newton, Larry Port, Jeff Nitta,Joel Lessom, and Danny Johnson

Here's a brief description from the ABA site:

As more businesses move their IT systems into the cloud, lawyers need to ask if cloud computing is right for their firm. Cloud Computing for Lawyers features a discussion of cloud computing fundamentals, an overview of legal cloud computing products, and step-by-step instructions for implementing cloud computing in your practice--including practical tips for securing your data. This book will help you:

Understand the current state of cloud computing technology

Weigh the risks and benefits of cloud computing

Evaluate legal cloud computing applications like law practice management, billing, time tracking, e-mail, and e-discovery software

Consider the ethical considerations of storing client data in the cloud

Maintain security and privacy for your online data

It will start shipping at the end of this month.

I'll be speaking on at panel at LegalTech New York on January 30th and will have copies with me, so you'll be able to take a look if you happen to attend LegalTech this year.

There will also be a "Meet the Author" session at ABA TechShow on March 30th at 1:45 and copies of the book will be available for purchase at TechShow.

I'm thrilled that this book is now available and am so thankful to all of my friends and colleagues, both online and off, for their support as I wrote this book. Couldn't have done it without you!

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and GigaOM Pro Analyst. She co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise, and is currently writing a book about cloud computing for lawyers that will be published by the ABA in late 2011. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at nblack@nicoleblackesq.com.

Posted at 08:21 AM in Cloud Computing, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

01/25/2012

Featured Legal Cloud Computing Platform: Rocket Matter 2.0

Image via Wikipedia

Now that my new book "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" is nearly published (expected publication date is January 27, 2012), I've decided to occasionally highlight legal cloud computing platforms on this blog. These posts will introduce relative newcomers to the legal cloud computing world or showcase significant new features added to the more "seasoned" platforms (many of which I discuss in my book).

Today's featured platform: Rocket Matter 2.0, one of the leading law practice management cloud computing platforms.

Last week I had the pleasure of talking with my good friend, Rocket Matter co-founder Larry Port, who walked me through some of Rocket Matter's newest features. The most significant addition to the platform is the document assembly function, which is described in their recent press release:

Document assembly allows users to merge their client and matter data, already stored in Rocket Matter, with templated legal forms, creating instantaneous new legal documents. Since Rocket Matter tracks time and generates invoices, a billable entry can be automatically created as well. In order to support the wide variety of needs from different legal practice areas, Rocket Matter now features unlimited custom fields for matters and client information.

You can check out document assembly in action below:

Document assembly is a great addition to this platform and also makes use of one of my favorite features of Rocket Matter: tagging. You can tag documents using terms that you choose and then access them easily using the familiar tag rather than running a general system-wide search for the document.

You can learn more about Rocket Matter's latest release here.

In coming weeks, I'll introduce you to a stand-alone document assembly legal cloud computing application and a Rochester, New York-based legal document management platform, so stay tuned!

Posted at 08:38 AM in Cloud Computing, Law Practice Management Software, Legal Cloud Computing Software | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

01/23/2012

Oregon Ethics Board on lawyers, cloud computing

This week's Daily Record column is entitled "Oregon Ethics Board on lawyers, cloud computing."

A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Oregon Ethics Board on lawyers, cloud computing

As cloud computing picks up speed and becomes more commonplace, lawyers are beginning to sit up and take notice. And, understandably, many who are considering using cloud computing services in their law practice wonder about the ethics of using these services, since doing so means that confidential client information is stored on servers owned and maintained by third parties.

As a result, over the last year or two, ethics committees from across the country have issued opinions which address that very issue, including: Professional Ethics Committee of the Florida Bar Op. 10-2 (2011), New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics Op. 842 (2010), Pennsylvania Bar Association Ethics Opinion No. 2010-060 (2010), North Carolina Bar Proposed 2011 Formal Ethics Opinion 6 (2011), and Iowa Committee on Practice Ethics and Guidelines Ethics Opinion 11-01 (2011).

The Oregon State Bar recently joined the pack in December of 2011 when it issued Formal Opinion No. 2011-188 concluded that Oregon attorneys may store client materials a third-party servers as long as there is compliance with the Oregon Rules of Professional Responsibility’s duties of competence and confidentiality which require lawyers to take reasonable steps to ensure the security of confidential client information.

According to the opinion, the reasonable steps that must be taken to ensure the security and confidentiality of client information include: “(E)nsuring the service agreement requires the vendor to preserve the confidentiality and security of the materials. It may also require that vendor notify Lawyer of any nonauthorized third-party access to the materials. Lawyer should also investigate how the vendor backs up and stores its data and metadata to ensure compliance with the Lawyer’s duties.”

Of course, technology changes rapidly these days and cloud computing services are no exception. The method of delivery of the cloud computing services, the location of the servers, and the security measures used to protect the data stored on the third party servers may change at any time. Accordingly, it is imperative that lawyers stay abreast of the changing nature of the cloud computing services provided to their law firms.

This fact was acknowledged in the opinion and of import was the emphasis placed on the continuing obligation of attorneys to reevaluate the security measures used by a cloud computing vendor:
“Although the third-party vendor may have reasonable protective measures in place to safeguard the client materials, the reasonableness of the steps taken will be measured against the technology ‘available at the time to secure data against unintentional disclosure.’ As technology advances, the third-party vendor’s protective measures may become less secure or obsolete over time. Accordingly, Lawyer may be required to reevaluate the protective measures used by the third party vendor to safeguard the client materials.”

Compared to some of the opinions issued by other ethics committees, the Oregon opinion provided less detailed guidance for attorneys considering a move to the cloud.

But, that’s not necessarily a bad thing because, as acknowledged in the opinion, technology changes rapidly. Committees that choose to impose upon attorneys very specific requirements relating to current technology limit the longevity and applicability of the opinion, quickly rendering it obsolete.
The wiser course is to follow the Oregon Bar’s example and draft an opinion that offers elastic, broadly framed guidelines that will apply to future technological advances and thus withstand the test of time.

Posted at 08:35 AM in Cloud Computing, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

01/12/2012

Virtual Law Offices: California Weighs In

This week's Daily Record column is entitled "Virtual Law Offices: California Weighs In."

A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Virtual Law Offices: California Weighs In

Virtual law offices are a relatively new, emerging concept, but fortunately for legal practitioners, a number of ethics committees are slowly but surely addressing the ethical issues surrounding the practice of law via an online portal.

Most recently, in November 2011, the State bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct addressed the ethics of maintaining a virtual law office in a draft formal ethics opinion (No. 10-0003) (See:www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/publicComment/2012/). This proposed opinion was handed down on November 5th and then opened up for a 90-day public comment period.

The issue considered by the Committee was whether “an attorney (may) maintain a virtual law office practice (“VLO”) and still comply with her ethical obligations, if the communications with the client, and storage of and access to all information about the client’s matter, are all conducted solely through the internet using the secure computer servers of a third-party vendor (i.e., “cloud computing”).”
Before addressing the ethical issues posed by VLOs, the Committee acknowledged that the cloud-based technologies used by VLOs are similar to the cloud computing software used by some traditional law offices and thus its many of its conclusions in the opinion applied equally to VLOs and brick and mortar offices using cloud computing services. However, because the hypothetical VLO at issue was solely virtual with no brick and mortar components, it presented unique ethical issues which would require due diligence considerations specific to VLOs.

In particular, the VLO practitioner must exercise reasonable care in ensuring that confidential client information is adequately protected from disclosure to unintended third parties. Of note, however, was that while technological expertise on behalf of the attorney was not required, it was essential that any attorney wishing to use cloud computing tools in their law practice have a basic understanding of the technology. As the Committee explained, “(W)hile Attorney is not required to become a technology expert in order to comply with her duty of confidentiality and competence, Attorney does owe her clients a duty to have a basic understanding of the protections afforded by the technology she uses in her practice.”

The Committee listed a number of factors that an attorney must address when choosing a VLO cloud computing provider, including: 1) the credentials of the vendor, 2) data security issues, 3) whether the cloud vendor will transmit client data across jurisdictional boundaries, 4) the attorney’s ability to supervise the vendor, and 3) the terms of the contract with the vendor. The Committee stressed that these obligations are continuing and the attorney must continue to reassess these issues, as needed, throughout the term of the contract with the vendor.

The Committee also advised that client consent regarding the storage of client data on a third party server was not required in regard to the hypothetical VLO discussed in the opinion, since that system was password protected and encrypted, and each client was permitted access only to his or her own matter. However, the Committee cautioned that a different type of VLO set up might require client consent, as might changing security standards over time, and thus the issue of client consent must be carefully considered based on the specific technology set up of the VLO each time an attorney establishes a virtual law practice.

The Committee also addressed, at length, the unique ethical issues presented by the delivery of legal services through a VLO. These obligations include ensuring that the intake process provides both the attorney and the client with sufficient information regarding legal services to be provided and the scope of representation. The attorney must also ensure that the client has an understanding of and access to sufficient technology to support representation via the VLO. Finally, the attorney has an obligation to keep the client sufficiently informed of the status of the matter and to adequately supervise “subordinate attorneys, and non-attorney employees or agents” even if those employees operate out of different physical locations.

All in all, this proposed opinion provided a very thoughtful and detailed analysis of the ethical issues presented when an attorney establishes a virtual law practice.

The only aspect of the opinion that troubled me was the suggestion that, in some cases, lawyers who outsourced the storage of confidential client data to third party providers might need to obtain client consent prior to doing so. Client consent is generally not a requirement when attorneys outsource the storage or handling of confidential client data in paper format, such as when storing old paper files in a warehouse or providing a process server with confidential documents. Electronic data should be treated no differently simply because the confidential information is stored in a different format. The suggestion that, in some cases, it might be treated differently in the future does not bode well for cloud computing and sets dangerous precedent.

That being said, aside from that one issue, this is a well thought out opinion that provides legal practitioners with a helpful overview of the ethical issues presented by VLOs and offers useful guidance for attorneys considering establishing this type of law practice.

Proposed CA Ethics Opinion on Virtual Law Offices (Steph Kimbro-Virtual Law Practice Blog)
Legal Technology Predictions for 2012 (nylawblog.typepad.com)
Is a cloud backlash on the horizon? (nylawblog.typepad.com)
Iowa Ethics Committee On Lawyers Using Cloud Computing (nylawblog.typepad.com)
Emails between lawyer and client and the risk of third party access (nylawblog.typepad.com)

Posted at 09:17 AM in Cloud Computing, technology trends, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

01/06/2012

New York Ethics Committee on Lawyers’ Use of Social Media During Trials

This week's Daily Record column is entitled "New York Ethics Committee on Lawyers’ Use of Social Media During Trials."

A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

New York Ethics Committee on Lawyers’ Use of Social Media During Trials

Despite the rise in social media use by the general population, many lawyers continue to be reluctant to use social media to support their law practices. Nevertheless, widespread social media use is a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly difficult for lawyers to ignore, as social media issues repeatedly crop in their cases.

For example, in a December column I discussed two New York criminal cases which focused on whether contact via social media websites constitutes a crime and in a November column, I analyzed two New York civil cases which addressed the issue of lawyers mining social media sites for evidence.

Social media use is also affecting jury trials and one interesting issue that has arisen is whether it is ethically permissible for lawyers to investigate jurors’ use of social media during the pendency of a trial and what lawyers must do if misconduct is discovered. The New York County Lawyers’ Association Committee on Professional Ethics addressed that very issue in Formal Opinion No. 743.

At the outset, the Committee cited RPA 3.5, which prohibits contact with jurors during the pendency of trials. The Committee explained that pursuant to RPA 3.5 it is ethically permissible for attorneys to conduct research and follow a jurors’ social media interactions only if the jurors are unaware the monitoring. In other words, lawyers may only passively follow a juror’s public social media interactions and may not take any actions that would make the jurors aware of their efforts.

So that means lawyers must ensure that jurors receive no notifications regarding the monitoring, thus precluding them from making a “friend” request of an individual juror on Facebook, “following” a juror on Twitter (since Twitter users are notified of new followers), signing up for a juror’s blog’s RSS feed via an email subscription, or visiting a juror’s LinkedIn profile (since LinkedIn provides users with information regarding those who recently viewed their profile).

Another ethical issue that lawyers may encounter when monitoring jurors’ social media use is the discovery of juror misconduct. In that case, if a lawyer discovers that a juror has violated the court’s instructions through the use of social media, then RPC 3.5 requires that the lawyer immediately report the misconduct to the court.

Importantly, as the Committee explained, a lawyer may not use knowledge of the misconduct to benefit his or her client’s case: “Further, the lawyer who learns of improper juror deliberations may not use this information to benefit the lawyer's client in settlement negotiations, or even to inform the lawyer's settlement negotiations. The lawyer may not research a juror's social networking site, ascertain the status of improper juror deliberations and then accept a settlement offer based on that information, prior to notifying the court. Rather, the lawyer must "promptly" notify the court of the impropriety—i.e., before taking any further significant action on the case.”

The Committee also clarified that lawyers have no ethical obligation to monitor jurors’ social media activities, but should they choose to do so, must notify the court of any improprieties discovered.

Thus, the decision to monitor jurors’ social media use during trial is a strategic one and requires careful consideration prior to its implementation, since information discovered could result in a mistrial or otherwise disrupt the proceedings. Similarly, if you decide to track jurors’ online interactions, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the various social media platforms, lest you inadvertently violate your ethical obligations by triggering a notification or otherwise notifying a juror of your monitoring efforts.

In other words, the lesson to be learned from this ethics decision and the social media cases that I have written about in recent months is that, nowadays, in order to be an effective lawyer, it is important to have a full understanding of the major social media platforms, including your ethical obligations when using them, so that you can ascertain how their use may impact your client’s case. The failure to do so could arguably amount to malpractice.

Posted at 07:50 AM in Social Media, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

01/05/2012

Legal Tech Round Up

Image by nishwater via Flickr

My legal technology colleagues regularly post about interesting tech trends, so here's a wrap up from recent weeks:

Tech Predictions for 2012 - #1: Ben Schorr tells us about the future of RIM--to the extent there is one (Tech Talk by Roland Schorr and Tower)
Review: iPad at Work by David Sparks -- excellent book for attorneys using an iPad: I've read a lot about this book and Ben Stevens tells you why it's a worthwhile read for lawyers. (iPhone J.D.)
Echosign Goes Mobile – Legally Binding Contracts On Your IPad / IPhone: Martha Sperry on a new app for lawyers (Advocate's Studio)
Your Ethical And Legal Duties When Using Wireless Networks: Something every lawyer needs to know (Ben Kerschberg, Law & Technology at Forbes)
The Year of the Flawg: Scott Greenfield laments the state of the blawgosphere. Do you agree with his assessment? (Simple Justice)
Online Legal Services in Shopping Center Kiosks: Steph Kimbro ponders possibilities of the future of legal services (Virtual Law Practice)
Wolfram|Alpha Releases App to Assist Lawyers: Bob Ambrogi gives you the rundown on a new mobile app (LawSites)
Client Portals – Love ‘em or Leave ‘em: Carolyn Elefant's not a huge fan. How about you? (My Shingle)
Does It Have to Be "Security & Up-Time" OR "Creativity & Ingenuity"?: Greg Lambert wants to find a happy medium between the two (3 Geeks and a Law Blog)

Posted at 05:10 PM in Books, iPhone/iPad, Mobile computing, Productivity, Round Up, Social Media, technology trends, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)