Have you heard the one about the $1 million fee award that walked into a spam filter?

It’s no joke.

UPDATE:  After reading my original post, a lawyer shared a story with me and authorized me to share it with you.  I’ve appended the story to this column. Because I think the story might serve as a valuable tip, I’m re-posting this blog to help draw attention to it. 

I’ve often blogged on the ethical duty of tech competence.  My posts on the topic are here.

Now, a cautionary tale from the real world.

Alberto Bernabe is a law professor at The John Marshall Law School. He’s also a regular presence on this blog’s #fiveforfriday Honor Roll.  Yesterday, on his own blog, Professor Bernabe posted ‘My computer ate my homework’ is not a good excuse.  His post links to a case that involves tech competence and a missed deadline to appeal an order awarding $1,000,000.00 in attorney’s fees.

The full story comes from Law For Lawyers Today.  The headline says it all: Deleted spam leads to missed appeal; not excusable, FL court of appeals holds.  Here’s the quick version:

  • Ben sued Tom.
  • Lawyer represented Ben.  Attorney, who works at Firm, represented Tom.
  • Ben won.
  • Lawyer moved for attorney’s fees.
  • The court granted the motion.
  • The court e-mailed the order to Attorney.
  • Attorney’s Firm’s e-mail system “filtered out” the order as spam.
  • Firm’s e-mail system was configured to delete spam after 30 days, without notice to a person.
  • Firm’s e-mail system deleted the order.
  • Tom moved for relief from judgment.
  • Attorney argued that Firm did not receive the order in time to file an appeal.
  • The trial court denied the motion.
  • An appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

At the hearing on Tom’s motion for relief from judgment, Firm’s former IT person testified that he had advised Firm against configuring its e-mail system to delete spam after 30 days and without notice to a person.  He also testified that he advised Firm to buy an e-mail backup system and to retain a tech vendor to deal with e-mail spam.  Firm did not take the advice, in part to save money.

The appellate court noted that Firm’s failure to learn about the order was not the result from “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.”  Rather, Firm intentionally chose to use “a defective e-mail system without any safeguards or oversight to save money. Such a decision cannot constitute excusable neglect.”

Competence includes tech competence.  For now, I’ll leave you with the final paragraph from the blog post that’s on The Law for Lawyers Today:

  • “The harsh result here may yet be ameliorated if the court of appeals grants rehearing.  In the meantime, however, the scary scenario points to the need to pay attention to your firm’s  technology and processes for handling spam.  And old-fashioned procedures like checking the court’s docket can also help avoid an unpalatable spam situation.”

UPDATE – here’s the abridged version of the story that a lawyer shared with me after reading my original post.

  • Lawyer represented Client.
  • Throughout matter, Lawyer & Client communicated via e-mail.
  • Matter went to a bench trial.
  • In a written decision, Trial Court found against Client.
  • Lawyer scanned the decision and attached it to an e-mail to Client.  In the body of the e-mail, Lawyer asked “Do you want to appeal?”
  • 31 days after decision was issued, Client called Lawyer and asked “have we heard anything from the trial court?”
  • Lawyer investigated and determined that the e-mail to Client was stuck in outgoing mail and had never left Firm’s server.
  • Over Opposing Party’s objection, Trial Court granted Lawyer & Client leave to file an untimely appeal.
  • On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court granted Opposing Party’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Lawyer’s firm took two lessons from the experience: (1) Lawyer regularly checks Lawyer’s spam folder & outgoing mailbox; and, (2) rather than relying on e-mail silence, Firm adopted a protocol to call clients on important issues, such as the decision whether to appeal.

 

Tech Incompetence

Advertisements

Have you heard the one about the $1 million fee award that walked into a spam filter?

It’s no joke.

I’ve often blogged on the ethical duty of tech competence.  My posts on the topic are here.

Now, a cautionary tale from the real world.

Alberto Bernabe is a law professor at The John Marshall Law School. He’s also a regular presence on this blog’s #fiveforfriday Honor Roll.  Yesterday, on his own blog, Professor Bernabe posted ‘My computer ate my homework’ is not a good excuse.  His post links to a case that involves tech competence and a missed deadline to appeal an order awarding $1,000,000.00 in attorney’s fees.

The full story comes from Law For Lawyers Today.  The headline says it all: Deleted spam leads to missed appeal; not excusable, FL court of appeals holds.  Here’s the quick version:

  • Ben sued Tom.
  • Lawyer represented Ben.  Attorney, who works at Firm, represented Tom.
  • Ben won.
  • Lawyer moved for attorney’s fees.
  • The court granted the motion.
  • The court e-mailed the order to Attorney.
  • Attorney’s Firm’s e-mail system “filtered out” the order as spam.
  • Firm’s e-mail system was configured to delete spam after 30 days, without notice to a person.
  • Firm’s e-mail system deleted the order.
  • Tom moved for relief from judgment.
  • Attorney argued that Firm did not receive the order in time to file an appeal.
  • The trial court denied the motion.
  • An appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

At the hearing on Tom’s motion for relief from judgment, Firm’s former IT person testified that he had advised Firm against configuring its e-mail system to delete spam after 30 days and without notice to a person.  He also testified that he advised Firm to buy an e-mail backup system and to retain a tech vendor to deal with e-mail spam.  Firm did not take the advice, in part to save money.

The appellate court noted that Firm’s failure to learn about the order was not the result from “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.”  Rather, Firm intentionally chose to use “a defective e-mail system without any safeguards or oversight to save money. Such a decision cannot constitute excusable neglect.”

Competence includes tech competence.  For now, I’ll leave you with the final paragraph from the blog post that’s on The Law for Lawyers Today:

  • “The harsh result here may yet be ameliorated if the court of appeals grants rehearing.  In the meantime, however, the scary scenario points to the need to pay attention to your firm’s  technology and processes for handling spam.  And old-fashioned procedures like checking the court’s docket can also help avoid an unpalatable spam situation.”

Tech Incompetence

 

 

 

Competence, ESI, and E-Discovery

I’ll say it again: Rule 1.1’s duty of competence includes tech competence.

To me, the duty includes:

  • knowing that that “it” exists,
  • knowing that clients, their adversaries, and witnesses have “it;” and,
  • knowing how to protect, preserve, produce, request, review, and use “it.”

What is “it?”

It is Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”).  Nearly every lawyer who has a client, has a client whose lawyer needs to know about ESI.  Indeed, I can’t think of a practice area in which a lawyer need not know about ESI.

  • Whether civil, criminal, probate, or family court, with so many of us so active on social media, ESI is a treasure trove of evidence.  Wondering how to admit a text, tweet, or social media post into evidence?  Check out the Evidence in Practice seminar at next week’s Annual Meeting of the Vermont Bar Association.
  • Wondering about your duties if a client asks about “scrubbing” or “taking down” social media posts?  The Pennsylvania Bar has issued some guidance.
  • For those of you practicing in the Vermont Superior Court’s Civil & Family Divisions, VRCP 26(a) lists the methods by which a party may obtain discovery.  Among them: a Rule 34 request to produce ESI.  Rule 26(b)(2)(A) imposes specific limitations on the discovery of ESI.  The federal rules of civil procedure have similar provisions.
  • Doing any estate work? There’s a new  Vermont law on digital assets.
  • Those of you who are in-house or general counsel . . . do you have some idea as to what ESI your client has, where it’s stored, and how long it’s kept? Have you talked to your client about its policy on employees using personal devices to access company data? Today, Above The Law posted some practical tips on preservation letters, including tips related to preserving & producing ESI.

I could go on & on. It is everwhere.

In 2015, the State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct issued Formal Opinion 2015-193.  The opinion responds to the question “[w]hat are an attorney’s ethical duties in the handling of discovery of electronically stored information?”  Here’s the digest:

  • “An attorney’s obligations under the ethical duty of competence evolve as new
    technologies develop and become integrated with the practice of law. Attorney
    competence related to litigation generally requires, among other things, and at a
    minimum, a basic understanding of, and facility with, issues relating to e-discovery,
    including the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”). On a case-by-case basis, the duty of competence may require a higher level of technical knowledge and ability, depending on the e-discovery issues involved in a matter, and the nature of the ESI. Competency may require even a highly experienced attorney to seek assistance in some litigation matters involving ESI. An attorney lacking the required competence for e-discovery issues has three options: (1) acquire sufficient learning and skill before performance is required; (2) associate with or consult technical consultants or competent counsel; or (3) decline the client representation. Lack of competence in e-discovery issues also may lead to an ethical violation of an attorney’s duty of confidentiality.”

Give the full opinion a read.

I assume most lawyers understand this, but here’s the critical point I want to make:  ESI is something that can be preserved, produced, and used.  Not knowing how to handle the discovery of ESI is no different from not knowing how to handle the discovery of paper documents.

 

If you’re new to ESI, here’s a primer that the ABA issued several years ago.  It’s a good start, but only a start.

E Discovery

 

 

Protecting Data: Cybersecurity Tips

For those of you pressed for time, the tips are in this post from the ABA Journal.  For the rest of you, I will now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

The phishing scam I warned about yesterday turned out to be a false alarm; a case of the school that conducted a fire drill without notifying the fire department.

Still, I’ll channel my inner Dwight Schrute:

FACT: lawyers and law firms are frequent targets of phishing scams & malware/ransomware attacks.

Some readers asked what the perpetrators of a phishing scam hope to gain by targeting lawyers and law firms.

Access to information.  Either yours or your clients’.

For example, be wary of an unsolicited e-mail that asks you to click on a link and confirm an account number or password.  This is obvious, correct?  If you respond, what have you done?  That’s right – you’ve given out an account number and its password.

Lately, there’s been a rash of well-publicized phishing scams designed to release malware or ransomware. In some instances, the malware provides the scammer with access to data – account numbers, passwords, secure client information.  In other instances, ransomware encrypts an office’s data.   And by “encrypts” I mean “prevents the office from accessing the data unless or until a ransom is paid.”  Think I’m exaggerating?

The Providence Journal has this story about a firm that was locked out of its data for three months earlier this year.  The firm paid a ransom, then paid another, lost $700,000 in billings, and is in litigation with its cybersecurity carrier.  Oh yeah, and how about being in the news for  having had confidential information breached?  Probably not the marketing campaign most of us would choose.

Or, from the FindLaw blog: last year, a prosecutor’s office in Pennsylvania paid a ransom to release files that had been locked after an employee clicked on a link in an e-mail that the employee believed to be from another government agency.  Sound familiar?  It should – that was yesterday’s pseudo-scam: an invitation for lawyers to click on links in an e-mail that appeared to be from the “ethics board.”

It’s not just small firms and state agencies that are at risk.

DLA Piper is one of the largest firms in the U.S. and has offices all over the world.  Last June, DLA Piper issued this cybersecurity advice in response to a global ransomware attack.  Unfortunately, and as reported by Above The Law, DLA Piper fell victim to a similar attack shortly after issuing the warning.

Today, I came across a post in the ABA Journal: Practical cybersecurity for law firms: How to batten down the hatches.  Give it a read.  It’ll be worth your time.

Remember: the Rules of Professional Conduct impose a duty to act competently to safeguard client information.  I understand that some of you worry that your unfamiliarity with technology will make you look silly if you ask for help.  Stop worrying. Doing nothing other than hoping that it doesn’t happen to you is not a reasonable alternative.

Safeguarding data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protecting Client Data

Next week, the Professional Responsibility Board will review several proposed amendments to the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, including proposals to change the rules that relate to the duty to act competently to protect client data.

I’ve blogged often on this issue.  Nevertheless, it bears re-visiting.

Rule 1.1 requires a lawyer to provide a client with competent representation.  I’ve asked the Board to recommend that the Court follow the ABA’s and add the underlined & bolded language to Comment [6]:

  • [6] To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.

Per Robert Ambrogi’s Law Sites Blog, 28 states have adopted a duty of tech competence.

Rule 1.6 prohibits the disclosure of information relating to the representation of a client.  A few years ago, the ABA amended Model Rule 1.6 to include the following language:

  • “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.”

I’ve asked the Board to recommend that the Court do the same.

I view Rules 1.1 and 1.6 as creating an affirmative duty to act competently to safeguard client information, including client information that is transmitted or stored electronically.

Now, if the proposals are adopted, will a lawyer need to know how to create an encryption key? Of course not.  Just like, right now, a lawyer does not have duty to know how to build a lock, a file cabinet, or a fob that opens & closes a keyless door.  But, a lawyer probably has a duty to understand the risks and benefits associated with leaving client files in a box that’s in a shared hallway, as opposed to in a locked file cabinet that’s in a room behind a keyless door to which only 2 firm employees have fobs.

Similarly, will a hack or data breach automatically lead to a disciplinary sanction? No. Again, if a lawyer has taken reasonable precautions to protect client data, whether by encrypting e-mail or exercising due diligence in choosing a cloud vendor, the fact of a breach likely is not a violation.

However, I believe we’re rapidly approaching, if we haven’t passed, the day when it will no longer be considered reasonable not to have encrypted email.  Further, if you’re considering a move to the cloud, while you don’t know how to build your own cloud server, the duty of tech competence includes a duty to know what you don’t know.

For example, let’s say you ask a potential cloud vendor whether your clients’ data will be encrypted.  The vendor replies “yes, we use a BTTF flux capacitor to encrypt data at rest.  For data in transmission, we guarantee it will make the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs or less.”

What’s your response?

To read more about a BTTF flux capacitor click HERE.  An update on the Kessel Run and parsecs (which are units of distance, not time) is HERE.

Finally, if adopted, my hope is that the new language in Rules 1.1 & 1.6 leads us away from re-evaluating the ethical duty with each technological advance that gives us a new method of transmitting and storing data.

As I’ve written, today’s cloud-based practice management systems are not much different than the businesses that lease storage units on the outskirts of damn near every town.  Before storing client information on or at either, a lawyer must review whether each affords reasonable precautions against unauthorized access and disclosure.

No, the question should not be “is this new way of storing information ethical?”  Nor should it be “is it okay to use smoke signals to communicate with my client?”  Rather, whenever the next big thing comes along, the question should be “does this means of transmitting and storing client information provide reasonable precautions and safeguards against unauthorized access and disclosure.”

For related posts:

cyber-security

 

So A Lawyer & Judge Are Facebook Friends . . .

So a lawyer & judge are Facebook friends.

So what?

The ABA Journal has the story of an appellate court’s decision that a Facebook friendship with a lawyer, without more, is not a sufficient basis to disqualify a judge.   The order is here.

This makes sense to me.  As with almost everything tech-related, I try to use analogies to non-tech stuff.  For example, if you learned that a lawyer who regularly appeared before a judge belonged to the same health club, or went to the same church, or was in the same law school class as the judge my guess is that you wouldn’t reflexively yell “conflict! disqualify the judge!”

No, you might ask something as simple as, “do they actually know each other? If so, how well? Do they do stuff together?”

In my view, Facebook is no different.  Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal agrees. (there’s no “s” – maybe the court only hears one case at at time).  The opinion presents a fantastic analysis of what it means, if anything, to be Facebook friends with someone.

Here are my favorite paragraphs from the ABA Journal’s post.  They include a quote from the opinion.

“Though a Facebook friendship may have once given the impression of a close friendship, that’s no longer the case, the Third District Court of Appeal said in explaining its disagreement with the other appeals court. Facebook uses data mining and network algorithms to suggest potential friends, and many Facebook users have thousands of friends, the appeals court said.

“ ‘To be sure,’ the opinion said, ‘some of a member’s Facebook ‘friends’ are undoubtedly friends in the classic sense of person for whom the member feels particular affection and loyalty. The point is, however, many are not. A random name drawn from a list of Facebook ‘friends’ probably belongs to casual friend, an acquaintance, an old classmate, a person with whom the member shares a common hobby, a ‘friend of a friend’ or even a local celebrity like a coach.’ ”

Ab, yes. A local celebrity.  Like a coach.  Music to my ears.

Crossing the Border? Consider Bringing Only What You Really Need.

There’s a lot going on in Montreal.

The city is celebrating its 375th anniversary.  The Impact and Alouettes have opened their seasons.  Guns N’ Roses plays Parc Jean Drapeau in a few weeks, and hopefully things go better than at the Big O in 1992.  The Museum of Fine Arts has Revolution.  The Lachine Rapids are a great way to beat the August heat.

Whatever draws you north, think twice about bringing electronic devices that contain client information.

A few weeks ago, I posted an update on protecting client information while returning to the U.S. from abroad.  In it,  I included this quote from another blogger: “I wish I could conclude this post with easy answers, but it appears that there are none at the moment.”

Moments change.

On July 27, the New York City Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 2017-5.  In short, and as reported by the ABA Journal, lawyers should take reasonable precautions to avoid disclosure of client information during a border crossing.

Here are some highlights from the NYC Opinion:

  • Rules 1.1 (competence) and 1.6 (confidences) impose a duty to act competently to safeguard client information.
  • The duty includes taking reasonable precautions against disclosing information that should not be disclosed.
  • The duty requires “attorneys to make reasonable efforts prior to crossing the U.S. border to avoid or minimize the risk that government agents will review or seize client confidences that are carried on, or accessible on, electronic devices that attorneys carry across the border.”
  • What are reasonable efforts/precautions? It’ll depend on a variety of factors.
  • Those factors suggest “that an attorney should not carry clients’ confidential information on an electronic device across the border except where there is a professional need to do so.”
  • The factors also suggest that “attorneys should not carry clients’ highly sensitive information except where the professional need is compelling.”

The opinion goes on to provide some detail on how to evaluate the risk that confidential information will be reviewed at the border. (It’s low).  The opinion also sets out safeguards to implement, with “the simplest option with the lowest risk [being] not to carry any confidential information across the border.”  (emphasis mine)

Importantly, the opinion suggests that an attorney does not violate New York’s rules by complying “with a border agent’s demand, under a claim of lawful authority, for an electronic device containing confidential information during a border search.”   Key, however, is that the opinion stresses that an attorney must first undertake “reasonable efforts to dissuade border agents from reviewing clients’ confidential information or to persuade them to limit the extent of their review.”

Finally, the opinion states that if client information is reviewed during a border crossing, Rule 1.4’s duty of communication requires the lawyer to inform each affected client.

I cannot give you “yes” or “no” answers for every conceivable possibility related to client information, electronic devices, and border searches.  I’ll leave it at this: if devices containing client information are searched – and that’s a big if – will you sleep easier knowing that you took precautions against it happening?

Remember, not every unauthorized access creates ethics liablity for the attorney.  “Reasonable precautions” does not mean “fool-proof.”  However, the failure to take precautions might be viewed as clear & convincing proof of foolishness – a determination that might lead to sleepless nights.

Whatever you do before you travel to Canada with devices that contain client information, do whatever will help you (and your clients) sleep best after you return.

Electronic Devices

 

Online Legal Research: is there an affirmative duty to use more than one research platform?

Earlier this week, Robert Ambrogi posted Turns Out Legal Research Services Vary Widely in Results.  Ambrogi, one of the leading commentators on legal technology, wrote:

  • “Call me naive, but I would have thought that entering the identical search query on, say, both Westlaw and Lexis Advance would return fairly similar results, at least among the cases ranked highest for relevance. After all, shouldn’t the cases that are most relevant to the query be largely the same, regardless of the research platform?”

Then, he added:

  • “Turns out, the results they deliver vary widely — not just between Westlaw and Lexis Advance, but among several legal research platforms. In fact, in a comparison of six leading research platforms — Casetext, Fastcase, Google Scholar, Lexis Advance, Ravel and Westlaw — there was hardly any overlap in the cases that appeared in the top-10 results returned by each database.”

Ambrogi’s post referred to Susan Nevelow Mart’s research paper The Algorithm as a Human Artifact: Implications for Legal {Re}search.   Mart is the Director of the Law Library and an Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Law School.

In this column that he wrote for Above The Law, Ambrogi dove deeper in Professor Mart’s findings.  Before I talk about the findings, I want to go back to my post Are Robots Nonlawyer Assistants.  

In my post, I suggested that lawyers who use artificial intelligence to perform “mundane legal tasks” might have an affirmative duty under the Rules of Professional Conduct “to have some sort of understanding of the coder’s qualifications.”  Well, as it turns out, a similar notion underpins Professor Mart’s research.

As Ambrogi reports, several years ago, a senior VP at Westlaw informed Professor Mart that the company’s “algorithms are created by humans.”  Mart, then, theorized that the choices that a human makes in creating an algorithm will necessarily influence the results delivered by the algorithm.  In other words, that the coder’s biases & assumptions will find their way into the algorithm and impact the results.  She set out to study her hypothesis.

Mart’s findings are eye-opening.  Using the same query across 6 providers – Casetext, Fastcase, Google Scholar, LexisAdvance, Ravel and Westlaw – she found that among the top 10 cases returned by each:

  • on average, 40% of the cases were returned by only 1 provider;
  • 7% of the cases were returned by all 6 providers.

I could go on & on.  Here’s the upshot, in an excerpt of the abstract from Professor Mart’s paper:

  • When legal researchers search in online databases for the information they need to solve a legal problem, they need to remember that the algorithms that are returning results to them were designed by humans. The world of legal research is a human-constructed world, and the biases and assumptions the teams of humans that construct the online world bring to the task are imported into the systems we use for research. This article takes a look at what happens when six different teams of humans set out to solve the same problem: how to return results relevant to a searcher’s query in a case database. When comparing the top ten results for the same search entered into the same jurisdictional case database in Casetext, Fastcase, Google Scholar, Lexis Advance, Ravel, and Westlaw, the results are a remarkable testament to the variability of human problem solving. There is hardly any overlap in the cases that appear in the top ten results returned by each database. An average of forty percent of the cases were unique to one database, and only about 7% of the cases were returned in search results in all six databases. It is fair to say that each different set of engineers brought very different biases and assumptions to the creation of each search algorithm. One of the most surprising results was the clustering among the databases in terms of the percentage of relevant results. The oldest database providers, Westlaw and Lexis, had the highest percentages of relevant results, at 67% and 57%, respectively. The newer legal database providers, Fastcase, Google Scholar, Casetext, and Ravel, were also clustered together at a lower relevance rate, returning approximately 40% relevant results.

Most importantly, here’s the ethics hook:  Rules 1.1 & 1.3 require lawyers to provide competent & diligent representation. Knowing that results vary widely by provider, do Rules 1.1 and 1.3 require lawyers to use more than one provider when conducting online legal research?

Although I’ve not yet had my daily requirement of coffee, my initial reaction is that it’d be much easier to argue “yes” than to argue “no.”  Actually, the real answer might be that it’s neither competent nor diligent for a lawyer to limit research to the first 10 results to a single query.

Indeed, in the abstract to her paper, Professor Mart notes:

  • “Legal research has always been an endeavor that required redundancy in searching; one resource does not usually provide a full answer, just as one search will not provide every necessary result. The study clearly demonstrates that the need for redundancy in searches and resources has not faded with the rise of the algorithm. From the law professor seeking to set up a corpus of cases to study, the trial lawyer seeking that one elusive case, the legal research professor showing students the limitations of algorithms, researchers who want full results will need to mine multiple resources with multiple searches.”

Anyhow, I was excited to post this, but now I can’t think of a creative way to wrap it up or to make a point.  I guess my point is this: know that online legal research services aren’t perfect.

Finally, maybe Professor Mart’s findings are a new twist on something that’s been going on forever.   I’m reminded of thinking “what the _____?” when I pulled a case that did not “follow” the case that I’d been thrilled to find, even though Shepard’s had promised me (with an “f”) that it would.  The human who coded it was, in fact, only human.

shepards

 

Update: Protecting Client Information at the U.S. Border

Two months ago, I posted Protect Client Info When Traveling Abroad.

Earlier this week, Jeff Richardson posted New information on your iPhone being searched by Customs at the border.  If you’re heading to Montreal this summer, it might be worth a read.

For those of you who reflexively avoid any tech-related post, do so at your own risk. Here’s the concluding paragraph from Jeff’s post:

  • “I wish I could conclude this post with easy answers, but it appears that there are none at the moment.  I don’t know how you should weigh the usefulness of having your iPhone and iPad with you outside of the country versus the risk that a border agent will try to search the device as you enter the country.  And remember, we are just talking about U.S. border agents right now; you may also find yourself facing an official in another country who demands access to your device and who has no regard for the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Rules of Evidence governing privilege.” (emphasis added)

By the way, Jeff’s blog is a helpful resource (think “tech competence“) for lawyers who use iPhones and iPads.

Confidential

Chatbots as Associates?

I’ve been on a hiatus from blogging.  To those of you who missed having quizzes today and last Friday, I apologize. The #fiveforfriday quiz will return next week.

Also next week, I intend to explore the distinction between conduct that should be considered “unethical” and conduct that “violates the rules as they are written.”  I’ll do so through the lens of New Jersey’s recent advisory opinion on Avvo’s Legal Services Program.  For an excellent primer on the topic, check out this post from Above The Law.

Now, on to chatbots.

Chatbot

A few months ago, I asked whether robots are non-lawyer assistants.  Referring to the idea that lawyers have a duty to ensure that their nonlawyer assistants comply with rules, I wrote:

  • “As I’ve often said, Rule 1.1’s duty of competence includes tech competence.  Read together, do Rules 1.1 and 5.3 require lawyers who use robots to have some sort of understanding of the coder’s qualifications?  Perhaps we will eventually treat the purchase of robots as we do the selection of a cloud vendor and hold that ‘a lawyer must take reasonable precautions in choosing a robot that will perform mundane legal tasks.'”

It probably seemed far-fetched.

It’s not.

Today, Robert Ambrogi’s LawSites blog posted DoNotPay Launches Service to Let Anyone Create a Legal Bot.  Essentially, the service allows a lawyer to create a robot assistant.

As I’ve often said, do not fear technology.  Advances in technology are not inherently unethical.  Think of the ways you use technology today that were not imaginable, or available, 20 years ago.

For example, compare (1) a secure email with a password-protected attachment & read-receipt, to, (2) a stamped letter, dropped off at 5:27 PM on a Friday, with a return-receipt requested.

Whether Monty Hall or Wayne Brady, I’ll take Door Number 1.

Would you rather that the rules be interpreted so as to require use of the U.S Mail?

Technological advances create opportunities for lawyers & firms to operate more efficiently and to provide wider access to cheaper legal services.