Category: Legal Technology

Yes, It’s Data Privacy Day

Here’s some news – it’s Privacy Day !  The National Law Review was alerted to this news by Emily Holbrook of the Risk Management Monitor – read on: 

It may surprise you, as it did me, to learn that today is Data Privacy Day, an “international celebration of the dignity of the individual expressed through personal information.” But Data Privacy Day also highlights the need for individuals to protect their data and how they can go about doing so.

There are many organizations out there that aim to help individuals protect their personal information and help businesses comply with data protection laws and regulations. The Online Trust Alliance is one such organization, whose mission is to create an online trust community, promoting business practices and technologies to enhance consumer trust globally. They recently released their “2011 Data Breach Incident Readiness Guide” to help businesses in breach prevention and incident management.

According to their newest guide, the true test for organizations and businesses should be the ability to answer key questions such as:

  1. Do you know what sensitive information is maintained by your company, where it is stored and how it is kept secure?
  2. Do you have an incident response team in place ready to respond 24/7?
  3. Are management teams aware of security, privacy and regulatory requirements related specifically to your business?
  4. Have you completed a privacy and security audit of all data collection activities, including cloud services, mobile devices and outsourced services?
  5. Are you prepared to communicate to customers, partners and stockholders in the event of a breach or data loss incident?

With the White House, members of Congress, Commerce Department and the FTC calling for greater privacy controls and breach notifications, self-regulation by businesses is becoming more and more important.

Google, one of the supporters of Data Privacy Day and the initiatives of The Privacy Projects is hosting a public discussion on privacy later this afternoon with representatives from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the FTC and the National Institute of Standards and Technology scheduled to attend. If you can’t stop by Google’s DC office for this event, don’t worry — it will be captured on video and posted to YouTube soon after.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2011 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

Want your website to get noticed? Break the rules!

From Moiré Marketing Partners, the National Law Review’s Business of Law Guest Bloggers this week, Sean Leenaerts provides some interesting insights on different things to consider for legal websites:

Every time I hear someone in marketing or advertising talk about “best practices” for website design, I roll my eyes.

Now granted, many of the do’s and don’t’s of web design have merit. They’ve been tried, tested and proven to work. And I believe that certain best practices such as ease of navigation, making good use of white space, ensuring that site text is easy to read and building for fast loading times are sarcosanct. But I also believe that best practices are helping to hold marketers back.

The problem I have with best practices is that while they are there to guide everyone in website design, they also cause everyone to look pretty much the same. Adherence to best practices tends to create a formulaic, templated approach to website design. The logos, colors and images on various sites may differ, but they mirror one another in their composition–i.e. logos in the upper left, navigation at the top, copy centered or aligned to the right, vertical scrolling, etc. They’re design conventions that definitely work, but make for few standout websites.

“Okay,” I can hear you saying, “that’s all well and good. But I’m a law/accounting/financial services firm. My site has to be functional, and it should stand out because of my message, not because it looks cool and creative.” All true. But in order to read your message, your site has to be noticed first. While I’m not advocating that professional services firms push the boundaries of convention just for the sake of being different, there are a few rules you can break (or at least bend) in order to make your site stand out from the competition.

Go Horizontal

While usability studies show that most website users prefer to scroll and read text vertically, most of those studies were conducted years ago prior to the ubiquitousness of touch screens, widescreen monitors and many other developments we now take for granted. For touch screens like those on the iPhone/iPad, horizontal navigation is the preferred form of navigation because it’s more ergonomic to move your hand from side to side than up and down. In the case of monitors, screen resolutions have gotten better. We used to design for 1024 x 768 screen resolutions. Now, many screens have resolutions that are 1440 x 900 and they’re much wider, which means that viewers get more real-estate horizontally than they do vertically.

I also think–and this is strictly my opinion–that our brains are better wired to consume information horizontally. Maybe it’s because we’ve been doing it that way offine for so many years. Books are read with a horizontal flip, galleries place paintings and photographs alongside each other, and most of our world is organized horizontally rather than vertically–i.e. our houses are next to each other and we move through the world in a mostly linear fashion.

Chart a New Course

Navigation buttons and links should always be easy to find, but do they always need to be at the top or along the sides of the page? And do they always have to be “buttons”? Unconventional navigation–as long as its easy to find and figure out–has the ability to engage the audience and keep them on your site. A good example of navigation that breaks with traditional design and works well is from the web design firm Hello Goodlooking in Helsinki, Finland:

Here, the navigation buttons are centered on the page and move to the sides when you click on them and open a window. They’re easy to see, easy to understand and make the site simply downright fun to navigate.

Shift Your Perspective

Right-aligned page content is often not seen in a world of centered or left-aligned web pages.  Whenever I come across a page that is aligned uniquely, I have to pause and take a second look. It’s a simple (and safer) way to look unique without having to deviate from other conventions of website design.

Be Bold

Using reversed type, multiple typefaces and unique fonts is generally frowned upon in website design. Yet sites that do all or some of these things tend to grab a lot of attention–and not necessarily for all the wrong reasons. And you don’t have to be a kooky design firm to do it. Morrison Foerster is a law firm whose website is truly unique within the industry. No images, just type–and mostly reversed type, at that. Big, bold headlines. A conversational tone. And don’t even get me started on their careers site, which has to be one of the best in any industry. Most law firms make claims to be different and innovative. MoFo’s website backs it up.

Sometimes breaking with best practices is worthwhile. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that it’s the only way to truly stand out. Striving for innovative design and a better way of web browsing has brought about some great changes in the last decade. Being different to be better is a perfect example of when the rules of best practices should be broken.

Copyright © 2011 Moiré Marketing Partners, Inc. All rights reserved.

ABA Second Annual Electronic Discovery & Digital Evidence Workshop Feb 18-19 San Francisco, CA

The National Law Review is a proud supporter of the ABA’s  Second Annual Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence Practitioners’ Workshop Feb 18-19 in San Francisco, CA.

This practitioners’ workshop will provide in-depth and hands-on education for in-house and retained counsel who are involved in (or who expect to become involved in) litigation involving electronic discovery and digital evidence. Executives and other litigation stakeholders from large and small public and private organizations will also gain invaluable insights on how best to prepare your technical staff and information systems to respond to requests for electronically stored information (ESI). Addressed to intermediate and advanced ESI litigation practitioners, the workshop will be taught by our faculty of leading federal magistrate judges, ESI litigation practitioners, forensics experts, and technology thought leaders, all of whom have significant experience in managing all aspects of ESI litigation. This workshop is unique in that its scope is much broader and deeper than traditional e-discovery courses that address only basic ESI concepts.

The curriculum consists of case studies, a mock trial, keynote sessions and panel discussions with luminaries in the field, and small workshops for practitioners, technologists, and forensic experts. We expect the entire program will be both illuminating and entertaining. Topics will range from ESI search trends and developments to emerging digital evidence issues and ethics to evidentiary issues from a criminal perspective. The sessions will address the key rules from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that impact on e-discovery. There will also be plenty of time for interaction with three federal magistrate judges and for networking at the receptions at the end of each day. 

The Conference will be held at the University of California – Hastings College of Law and  mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) accreditation has been requested from all states that require continuing legal education.  15.25hours of CLE credit including 1.0 hours of Ethics credit have been requested from those states recognizing a 60-minute credit hour and  18.3 hours of CLE credit including 1.0 hours of Ethics credit have been requested from those states recognizing a 50-minute credit hour.

Click Here for More Information and to Register.

When Is Research Misleading?

Sue Stock Allison, the Managing Director of The Brand Research Company, as Sister Company to Greenfield / Belser Ltd.  was recently the National Law Review’s recent Business of Law Guest Blogger.  Sue shared five key things for Law Firms to keep in mind when performing opinion research.  

Sometimes, when it comes to opinion research, what you see is not necessarily what you get. For instance, focus group moderators can inadvertently (or purposely) create bias among recipients. Or when questioned about buying habits or intentions, people may tell questioners what they want to hear, rather than what they actually feel.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve cautioned against considering all research valuable or even accurate. But there are ways to ensure that your findings are sound when undertaking research among your clients, your organization members or your markets.

Here are five tips for making sure the research your firm is using is useful:

1. Know your Goals

I know you’re thinking, “Of course, we need goals!” but, alas, research can be initiated for nutty reasons. My personal favorite: “Everyone else is doing it.” That everyone else is doing it may make initiating a new study an excellent recommendation, but you still must match your research goals to your business goals. Do you define success by a measurable return on the research investment, or do you just want to touch your most loyal clients? Are you trying to guide or justify a specific marketing expenditure or, more loosely, gauge awareness in a particular market? Knowing what you want to achieve is crucial to obtaining the data you need. Detailing the specific information you want to know, even using hypothetical statements of finding, can help you to make your objectives clear. In this case, the cart (what you wish to carry away from the research) truly comes before the horse.

2. Fully Define Your Target Audience

Do you put stock in those general market studies that “rank” your business better or worse than others? Syndicated studies are great gossip and provide fodder for your website’s homepage

(“We’re #1 in reputation for excellence for the third straight year!”), but there is limited value in being considered number one for anything if those who provide the ratings do not purchase or even influence the purchase of your services.

When conducting research, or using research conducted by someone else, you need to ensure that respondents include individuals whose opinions you really need to know. Do you want to know what your top 25 clients think, your clients with the highest potential or your clients who seem to be fading away? Are you looking for guidance from prospects for a specific service, in a specific geographic area, or from a certain type of business? If existing research was conducted among exactly the right group of individuals–excellent! If not, you’ll need to conduct your own research to get what matters to you.

3. Select the Best Methodology

As popular as they are, focus groups are one of the most misused research methodologies. They are a qualitative research method, statistically invalid, which necessarily makes them ill-suited for drawing conclusions about habits or actions. Whether you conduct one session with 10 individuals or 10 sessions with a total of 100 individuals, they are never conclusive. Focus groups are, however, an excellent way to come up with ideas about proclivities or intent that can later be tested with quantitative surveys. Focus groups can help you discover undetected problems with an ad campaign, potential challenges of a new service offering, or the usability of a website design. But when you want to understand what is most important among a number of choices, what really drives client loyalty, or how to best position your business in a market—these objectives require a quantitative method that can provide the metrics you need.

4. Ask the Right Questions the Right Way

Another common problem with focus groups and other forms of research is how easily respondents can be led to particular responses, and how hard it is for them to accurately assess and report their own motivations. When you develop your discussion guide, in-depth questionnaire or survey instrument, you need to make sure the questions are not leading, that your respondents are not primed to answer in a particular way. (In fact, when conducting focus groups, I often ask participants to write down their initial impressions before discussion even begins.) For telephone or in-person interviews, make sure your interviewers are skilled in the techniques that will bring even subconscious motivations to the surface.

5. Interpret with Caution

How do you know if your findings are truly reliable? Even if you’ve clearly laid out your goals, comprehensively defined your target, picked the best methodology, designed an effective research instrument, and used excellent interviewers, the results can still be misleading if your interpretation of the findings is flawed. Reliable interpretation begins with proper analysis of the data, which requires understanding how the target population was selected and ensuring that your resultant data includes the information needed to feed your conclusions. Perhaps the most common problems are conducting quantitative analyses with too few responses, or having a response rate that is too low–both of which beg the question: How do the non-respondents differ from those who are included in the research?

So, is research misleading? It certainly can be, but by using these guidelines, you can take the necessary steps to ensure that your research will more accurately provide the information you need.

©2011 Greenfield/Belser Ltd.

 

Law2020™- What Will It Take for Law Firms to Thrive?

The Business of Law guest blogger at the National Law Review this week is Meredith L. Williams of Baker Donelson. Meredith examines three areas:  Law firm Technology, Firm Characteristics and the Skill set Lawyers and makes educated predictions on how successful will look.  

Law2020™ is the brainchild of Bryan Cave’s Strategic Technology Partner John Alber and the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA).  I have had the privilege of working with John and the ILTA organization over the past 4 years as a part of the conferencing planning committee.  This year I am serving as a Conference Vice-President for the upcoming international conference being held in Nashville, TN from August 21st – 25th, 2011.

The concept of Law2020™ is based upon an anticipation of the legal industry encountering the same market dynamics that have challenged the newspaper industry since 2000-2010.  The online environment changed newspapers’ production, employment and consumption.  The ACC Value Challenge has placed law firms under a microscope like that the newspaper industry is under, thus requiring the legal industry to make strategic changes to meet the new needs of clients.  Will law firms see a similar shift due to the economy and the changing client landscape?  What can law firms learn from the newspaper industry and those papers that survived?   The real question for forward-thinking law firms is not what will it take for law firms to survive in the year 2020, but what will it take to thrive?

We will look at this concept from 3 perspectives:

1.       What technologies will successful law firms need in 2020?

2.       What will be the characteristics of successful law firms in 2020?

3.       What will be the skill set of successful lawyers and staff in 2020?

What technologies will law firms need in 2020?

Technology will continue to play a large role, as it does today, in the advancement of law firms in the year 2020.  The key trends of technology will center on legal project management, alternative fee arrangements, transparency, and mobility.

The majority of law firms are starting to look at legal project management and alternative fee arrangement  tools.  Although these are new concepts for law firms, the thought process behind both is not new.  Lawyers are already using use many tools to help manage their files.  However, the idea of pre-planning is new;  taking a step back and visualizing the entire case or deal and mapping out the various steps and risks to reach an end result, as well as the cost of each step.  Tasking, budgeting and knowledge management tools will continue to grow exponentially over the next 10 years as a result of client desire for more understanding and control.  Intranets, budget tools, tasking applications, and other project management tools will be in high demand.

A lesson learned through the WikiLeaks scandal is that transparency of information is now expected, not just desired. The same can be said of law firm clients.  Clients crave both an advocate and a partner.  They want to understand everything that a lawyer is doing for them, they want the lawyer to fix problems, and they want the lawyer to help manage risk. Tools such as extranets provide the client with a full view of all case and deal materials; these are now being  used by many law firms in the U.S.  Over the next 10 years, clients will have access to risk management tools via these legal service platforms.  Clients will be able to use online legal services provided by law firms to run their businesses and comply with new regulations and laws.

The number one trend law firms must deal with is mobility.  The IPad, IPhone, Blackberry and other mobile device growth over the past few years is an indication of what individuals will be expecting in the coming years.  All people, including clients, want to access their applications and information when, where, and how they want.  As mentioned earlier, extranets and information sharing will increase over the next decade.  In addition, video capabilities and cloud computing will be prominent technologies for all law firms.  Law firms are expanding; however, there is a desire to cut expenses but keep the personal interaction.  Video via conferencing, web cams, etc. can make this happen.  Law firms are also looking to the Cloud as an opportunity to cut slim expenses and create complete mobile enviroments.  Whether a firm chooses to place all critical application in the Cloud or only a few,  Cloud use will continue to grow in the legal industry.

What will be the characteristics of law firms in 2020?

As technology changes over the next 10 years, so will the characteristics of law firms.  Much of this will be a result of the changing landscape of clients. Additonally, management will shift to accommodate a new generation with different expectations.  Other new resources include the virtual law firm, outsourcing, partnership track changes, increased risk sharing with clients and possible investments by non-lawyers.

Virtual law firms and lawyer mobility will increase.  Brick and mortar buildings will not go away, but we will see an increase of lawyers choosing to work for a firm while at home or in a different location.  In addition, legal process outsourcing will appear in law firms over the coming years.  Many firms are venturing into this field with document review and other e-discovery tasks.  Clients are pushing to keep expenses low and no longer want to pay large costs for firms to do document review tasks, when these can be outsourced for half the cost.

As noted in the alternative fee arrangements and transparency discussion, clients are looking for a partner to help bear some of the risk with their representation.  Many clients will not pay the typical billable hour.  They want to hire firms that are willing to share this risk and allow for different methods of payment.  Some want flat fees with exceptions or bonuses based upon the efforts of the law firms.  With these new methods of revenue for a law firm, the traditional path to partnership, currently based primarily on billable hour requirements, will change.  How law firms react to this will determine whether they retain their lawyer resources.

One law firm characteristic available in other countries is the ability to have law firm investment by non-lawyers.  Allowing non-lawyers to invest in the firm creates more loyalty to the law firm and the work the non-lawyer is doing for the firm and clients.  It is something US firms will consider as the economic shift continues to reshape law firms as we know it.

What will be the skill set of lawyers and staff in 2020?

We have now taken a look at what technologies will be used by law firms in 2020 and what a law firm will look like.  The bigger question is what skills will be required by lawyers and staff in 2020?  Efficiency of the law practice, a streamline business model, relationship building and marketing via social media and the capability to work via a new legal service platform will dominate the skills of lawyers in 10 years.

As discussed above, the economy and client expectations will drive many changes in the legal industry, including the skill sets needed to practice and support the practice. To be specific, lawyers will begin to hone their practices to increase efficiency.  This will be mainly a result of the increase in LPM and AFAs.  By breaking down different areas of law into steps and risks, lawyers will better understand each step and will find ways to deliver a better quality work product at a lower cost.

In addition, law firms will begin to consider streamlining certain tasks through administrative staffs to create better business processes.  For example, layering secretaries with 5-6 attorneys and then creating an additional level of executive assistants to provide project management and client communication is something new that law firms will consider.  This will allow new alternative paths for legal staff.

Lawyers also need to learn to market and build relationships via social media. This is the biggest change we have seen over the past few years, and the usage is drastically increasing.  This new form of communication and collaboration needs to be harnessed for a lawyers to reach certain clients with younger and innovative leadership.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the legal profession will see changes over the next decade.  How a firm adapts to the changes in the practice of law and client needs will determine whether that firm will survive.  For additional information regarding Law2020™, please visit the International Legal Technology Association Peer to Peer Magazine on the concept.

©2010 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

eDiscovery & Social Media

The National Law Review’s featured guest blogger last week was Meredith L. Williams of  Baker Donelson provides some great insight on discovery issues related to social media sites: 

Social media is not going anywhere, so we must learn to live with it and use it to our advantage and within the confines of the newly articulated and always changing rules.  If ever a doubt, one can look to the Nielson Report (“What Americans Do Online: Social Media and Games Dominate Activity,” Aug. 2, 2010) that states two-thirds of the internet population utilize social media sites.  Internet users now spend more than 10% of their online time on social media sites, and usage is constantly increasing.  With this rise in social media usage, the issues surrounding ediscovery in the realm of social media data is an important consideration of litigation.

The definition of legal discovery is locating all documents that are relevant to support the litigation.  But how does ediscovery work when the content is not owned or controlled by the business? How does a business preserve data that is outside of its firewall? Finally, how does one seek relevant information held on social media sites?

Social media sites are not like email or word processing documents when it comes to preservation. These sites are operated outside of a business’s firewall by a third party. Data is normally scattered on many sites and connected by many people or custodians.  Finally, the retention policy or schedule of a business does not affect data located on social media sites.   When a business maintains social media pages, it has a duty to preserve the data that may be relevant in anticipated or actual litigation.

Seeking information from social media sites can be difficult at best.  Many times discovery of this data must be gained through consent or authorization of a third party, which only causes an extra, and often expensive, burden.  Each third party is different in how it maintains the data, and each has the right to delete any content for violation of its terms of use policy, at any time. That deleted information could be relevant to litigation.

Unfortunately for businesses, the courts are only beginning to outline the duty of preservation and the right to discover the information from social media sites.  The best line of defense for many businesses is to develop internal policies and training programs to educate all employees of the risks of using social media.  In addition, new software now exists that can aid in preserving data.

Duty to Preserve

The 2006 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure amendments changed the discovery rules to allow a party to request “electronically stored information” within the “possession, custody, or control” of the responding party.  A duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence exists when litigation is “reasonably anticipated.”  In addition, parties who fail to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) are subject to penalties. Social media data fits the definition of ESI; thus, businesses must deal with the issue of preserving and possibly producing social media data that falls under their data retention policy.

Due to the fact that social media sites are owned and controlled by third parties, vendors are beginning to develop technology to capture dynamic web pages for preservation.  The first few companies in this market include Iterasi, Smarsh, Arkovi and LiveOffice.  Additionally, Adobe may be used to capture web images in static format.  These are but a few examples of new technologies that businesses are considering to meet their duty to preserve and produce ESI.

Recent Case Law

Additional issues remain – whether the information on social media sites is considered private, whether it is discoverable and whether it is admissible as evidence.  Recent case law has addressed these as yet unanswered issues.

In Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2001), the court held that there is a lack of expectation of privacy regarding public postings on social media sites.  The user has the right to select privacy preferences on his social media sites.  Certain settings allow the public to see limited information and authorized, connected individuals to have greater access. In addition, many social media site privacy policies specifically state that certain postings are subject to a weakened privacy expectation.  Courts have generally held that when a user makes information available publically via their privacy settings, there is a lower expectation of privacy and, therefore, the information is discoverable.

Jumping ahead to the current year, we find EEOC v. Simply Storage Mgmt., LLC, No. 1:09-cv-1223-WTL-DML (S.D. Ind. May 11, 2010).  In this case, the court compelled production of relevant content from social media sites.  The court discussed discovery of social media site data as simply “requir[ing] the application of basic discovery principles in a novel context.”  The facts of Simply Storage Mgmt, involved the defendant seeking production of social media site profiles and communications from Facebook and MySpace.  The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the content that was relevant to the case.  The plaintiff argued that requiring such production would infringe on his privacy.  However, the court held that the expectation of privacy is not a basis for shielding discovery.  In addition, the court found that any privacy concern therein was lessened due to the fact the information had already been shared.

Earlier this year, Crispin v. Audigier (C.D. Cal.) (May 26, 2010), brought us a new ruling regarding social media and the Stored Communications Act (SCA).  In this case, the court was reluctant to allow discovery of private social media email communications.   The case involved a copyright infringement claim.  Audigier subpoenas the private social media messages of Crispin.  A magistrate judge disagreed with Crispin’s arguments that these communications fell under the SCA, preventing the provider of the messaging service from releasing private communications, because the social media sites messaging services are used solely for public display.  However, the district court reversed the ruling, holding that Facebook and MySpace allow private message or e-mail services which are separate from the general public posting.  This case held that the SCA protects Facebook and MySpace messages that aren’t publicly available.  Therefore, these messages cannot be subpoenaed in civil litigation.  In addition, the court left the door open for further clarification, noting that “Facebook wall postings and the MySpace comments are not strictly ‘public,’ but are accessible only to those users plaintiff selects.”

On the other side of the country, we find a slightly different ruling with Romano v. Steelcase Inc., 2010 WL 3703242 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 21, 2010).  TheRomanocourt allowed discovery of an entire social media site with all current and deleted postings.  The court ordered the plaintiff to provide the defendant with access to private postings from two social media sites. The court reasoned that information contradicting the plaintiff’s claims was included on the public sections of the plaintiff’s social media site and, therefore, it was reasonable to believe that the private sections might contain additional relevant information. The court even cited Facebook and MySpace policies, which warn users they should have “no expectation of privacy.”

Even if one is able to surmount the difficult hurtle of obtaining data from a social media site, an equally daunting challenge remains – getting the data admitted.  The main issue with admissibility is authenticity; spam, viruses, hackers and the like make social media sites susceptible to manipulation or fraud.   For this reason, courts have consistently been cautious when admitting social media data. In some cases, judges have become online “friends” with a party in order to authenticate postings, photos, captions and comments. (Barnes v. CUS Nashville, LLC).  Other courts have allowed printed copies with time date stamps to corroborate facts. (Treat v. Tom Kelley Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc.). Finally, some courts have used circumstantial evidence associated with the creation of the data (i.e. metadata and hash tags) to authenticate social media content.  (Lorraine v. Markel Am. Insur. Co.).  Admissability remains  an area of concern as the use of social media data in discovery becomes the norm.

Discovery of Social Media Data

A lawyer must decide early on whether relevant information exists on social media sites.  Within that evaluation, the costs to preserve, collect, review and produce the social media information should be considered.

Start discovery of social media by conducting large sweeping web searches for public social media sites of adverse parties or adverse witnesses.  Many individuals do not lock profiles or use privacy settings; therefore,  all postings, messages, comments, etc. are open to the public.  Preserve the sites with date stamps.

If an individual’s social media sites are set to private, and, therefore, not open to the public, what can a lawyer do?  Many boards of ethics do not allow lawyers to “friend” anyone to gain access to private profiles of information (NY State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 843 (Sept. 10, 2010)). So, instead of friending an individual, use discovery requests.  Start with a document request asking for all postings and messages that are related to and relevant in the litigation.  One can also consider requesting an access wavier to social media sites that allow for complete access to the site.  LinkedIn has a standard wavier located on its site. Finally, ask for all social media identifications used by the adverse party in an interrogatory.  Regardless of what direction taken, social media should be a part of the ediscovery process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a business should take inventory of what social media sites are being used within the organization.  Then, set policies to help educate all employees of the risks regarding social media usage.  Finally, decide if backup software is needed to help with preservation and production of the business’s own social media data.  Regardless of retention schedule taken with social media, plan to always show the court that you’ve done your best, which is all that is expected.

For lawyers, be prepared to incorporate social media into an edisovery plan.  Start early within the litigation.  Draft standard document requests, waiver forms or interogatories around social media production.  Finally, be aware of the changing legal landscape on privacy, discoverability and admissibility, as these areas will continue to change, more and more rapidly in the future.

©2010 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. All Rights Reserved.

Legal and Risk Management Implications of Cloud Computing

We’ve been seeing a whole bunch of things at the National Law Review about the legal risks and risk management issues related to cloud computing.  Accordingly, we’d like to share some of the better articles we’ve come across on the NLR and on Twitter…

For an Overview of What Cloud Computing or SaaS is and the Advantages and Disadvantages for Businesses, Especially Law Firms…..

Are You Ready For the Cloud? from Baker Donelson

Lawyers Should Not Be Wary of SaaS and Cloud Computing by Niki Black of Lawyerist.com

What Cloud Computing Really Means from InfoWorld.com

What Lies Ahead? Business and Legal Issues in the Coming Decade from Much Shelist

For Risk Management and Legal Considerations Related to Cloud Computing or SaaS…..

The Cloud and Your Data from Risk Management

The Legal Issues Around Cloud Computing by Amit Agarwal of Digital Inspiration

Privacy and Information Security for Emerging Businesses by Poyner Spruill

For Specific Things to Consider When Choosing a Cloud Computing Provider….

Putting Cloud Data Storage Providers to the Test by Risk Management

7 Questions For Any Cloud Based Service from the Legal Typist, Inc.

How to Evaluate Cloud Computing Providers by Jason Baker – Data Center Knowledge

Copyright ©2010 National Law Forum, LLC

Are You Ready For the Cloud?

Meredith L. Williams of Baker Donelson is the National Law Review’s Business of Law Featured blogger.  Meredith discusses the pros and cons of cloud computing for law office operations. 

Introduction

Is cloud computing a shift or is it the next natural step in strategic business development?  Is the cloud  the right answer for your law firm or company?  Is the cloud the right answer for all applications and infrastructure or is it just a piece of the puzzle?  These are a just few of the many questions law firms and companies are asking themselves as they consider a move to the cloud.  There are many reasons why cloud computing is a very seductive solution to the cost cutting environment we find ourselves dealing with today.  However, there are many issues, legal and organizational, that must be considered to determine the validity of the cloud for each environment.

The “cloud” means different things to different people.  For most of us, we have been using cloud computing technology for years without defining the term.  Example cloud environments are extranets, legal research websites, online file storage and much more.  By definition, the cloud is a metaphor  referring to internet based computing in which applications, data, software or network functions are stored on remote servers.  There are presently three types of cloud environments:

  1. Infrastructure as a service or hardware cloud which serves as a data center,
  2. Software as a service or the software cloud, and
  3. Desktop applications operated within a hardware cloud.

Although we have been using the cloud in the past, the difference at this time is the potential of using the cloud for core business applications.

Why the Cloud?

For strategic business leaders, the cloud offers a way to minimize cost, increase mobility, prepare for disaster recovery, offer device flexibility, collaborate on demand and reduce downtime. Let us take a look at the different sections of a law firm and see how the cloud can affect the overall business functions.

In the information management world collaboration is key.  The more a firm can offer needed collaboration tools with a client, the more the client becomes entrenched in that firm culture.  The cloud provides law firms with a unique opportunity to offer clients a collaborative environment in an on-demand system.  The client can truly be connected with the law firm from anywhere with any device in the world.

Fewer applications or errors and easier upgrades are phrases application and support specialists love to hear.  The cloud environment can make them a reality.  The cloud offers software functionality to users regardless of locality or device.  Therefore, fewer setups, downloads and support hours are spent dealing with application changes and upgrades.  This new environment aids a law firm in flexibility allowing the firm to change applications as rapidly as the needs of the users change.

The main concern of most in the applications world is support.  How do current structured IT staffs support an environment when the applications are not local?  What will be the skill set of an applications and desktop support staff individual with applications in the cloud? These are areas IT departments must address before making the move to the cloud.

The cloud offers business and cost savings in a very unique way.  The upfront costs of moving to the cloud are large.  However, over time the cost savings from increased efficiency and reduced hardware, software, support and downtime help to offset the upfront costs.  The biggest hurdle for cloud computing may not be cost but instead data security.  It is easy to argue that a law firm or company can protect its data when it lives in a server room on site with a locked door but how do IT departments protect their data when it sits thousands of miles away on servers not owned by the company?  Law firms will need to determine if this is a deal breaker or is this an area of contract negotiation with the cloud provider.

What are the contractual issues?

Now that we see the potential of cost savings, flexibility, mobility and more,  we will address the contractual issues and concerns each law firm will need to consider.  The first step in any contractual negotiation is due diligence of both parties.  Law firms must evaluate news, law suits, current events, financial stability, customer references, provider longevity and any other possible information that could affect the contractual obligation fulfillment.  Only then can the contract negations begin.

The largest areas of concern in the cloud are data security and privacy. A demonstration of these concerns is seen in the 2009 complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) regarding cloud services of Google.  In the complaint, EPIC alleges Google did not adequately safeguard the confidential information obtained from clients.  This complaint raises serious questions for the vendor to address and draft into the contract.  Questions to ask include where the data is stored, what are the physical security measures to protect the data, is a shared resource used in storage, what is the security during transmission, what are the disaster recovery measures and what are security incident response times. In addition, questions around data migration and transition should be addressed.

Another issue to consider is legal compliance.  Highly regulated industries such as health care facilities falling under HIPAA must think twice about moving information to the cloud.  Vendors are expected to maintain the data at the same standard required of the company.  This can become a contractual deal breaker if the vendor will not agree to the higher standards.   The regulated industries affect law firms that maintain work product and client information for clients working in these regulated industries.  Law firms must now consider the standards guaranteed to their clients when moving to the cloud and verify the vendor will agree to that level of maintenance.

A point that is only just beginning to emerge in the cloud discussion is the level of control and ownership of the servers and data existing on the servers.  Questions to consider are data termination and vendor claims and rights to the data.  The control influences discovery, liability and litigation hold processes.  Negotiation can help prevent future claims of spoliation.

Performance, reliability and service features shape the day to day experience of users in the cloud.  Therefore, inquiring about disaster recovery set up, scalability of applications, process for upgrades and feature releases, suspension of services, offline capabilities, base subscription services and add-on services of applications can affect the contract obligations of the vendor, expectations of the client and most importantly cost of the contract.

Global performance and legal compliance of data across international borders are concerns for many large law firms.  Is the vendor only offering a cloud solution that is U.S. based?  This is a discussion point for the contract and can possibly be a deal breaker when adhering to EU standards of compliance.

All of the above contract negotiation points lead to the largest decision, cost.  What is included in the cost of the cloud services?  What is not included?  And the final and most important question to ask, whether the move to the cloud is a benefit if the law firm already owns the software licenses and hardware to maintain the status quo.

What will the courts be deciding?

The courts are well aware of the cloud computing movement.  In Oregon v. Bellar, 217 P. 3d 1094 (Or. App. 2009), the court took note that 69% of U.S. residents that are online utilize at least one cloud site. Due to the unique custodial issues involved with cloud computing, the cloud can present challenges to e-discovery and jurisdictional questions. Decisions concerning these issues are just starting to appear but with conflicting rulings.  The question of what the courts will decided has yet to be seen.

What will the future bring?

As we stated earlier, many of us have been using the cloud for years without calling it the cloud.  The difference surrounds the movement of core business functions such as email and document management to the cloud.  In the past, these features have been kept at a local level.  But as you see above, this is changing.  As more and more cloud providers make their way to the forefront, this movement will only increase.  The question is whether the cloud is the right solution for your law firm?

©2010 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author:

Meredith L. Williams is Baker Donelson’s Director of Knowledge Management.  Although trained as a lawyer, she is not actively engaged in the practice of law.  Instead, she oversees BakerNet, the Firm’s industry-leading intranet, and coordinates strategic growth on behalf of the Firm in knowledge management, competitive intelligence and technology.  Ms. Williams is widely recognized as a leading authority in knowledge management issues for the legal field, and is a frequent presenter and author on knowledge management and competitive intelligence. 901-577-2353 / www.BakerDonelson.com

 

 

Avoiding Ambiguity in Patent License Agreements

National Law Review featured guest blogger James M. Singer of Pepper Hamilton LLP provides a great analysis of why companies need to take a very close look at the wording in their licensing agreements. 

Recent publications indicate that intangible assets account for between 70 percent and 80 percent of the overall value of United States companies.  For companies that are involved in intellectual property licensing, a significant portion of this value is derived from licensing revenues.  Thus, the agreements in which licenses are granted must be carefully drafted to ensure that agreement clearly explains the rights and obligations of each party.

Unfortunately, too often companies start a license discussion with a form document that does not anticipate issues that the parties may encounter during the licensing relationship.  In addition, a slight ambiguity in the agreement can create headaches for both parties down the road.

In early November I will have the opportunity to speak about patent licensing at a CLE seminar, and when preparing my comments I started thinking about situations that I’ve seen where just a few words in the agreement caused the parties to significantly disagree about the scope of the license, the payment obligations, or other key terms.

For example, when licensing a patent, the licensee also may expect to receive a license to general categories of “related know-how” or “related intellectual property.”  For some companies, it may be relatively easy to identify exactly what falls into these general categories.  However, other licensors — such as large companies, research institutions, and contract manufacturers — may have a wide variety of projects that could be considered “related” to the licensed IP.  These licensors should avoid general categories like “related IP”, or at least narrowly define “related IP” to that developed by specific individual, at a specific time, or under specific conditions.

Another example can be found in a 2009 Seventh Circuit court decision of Sunstar Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Company, which reviewed an agreement whereby Alberto-Culver granted Sunstar a senyoshiyoken in certain trademarks.  The parties differed as to whether the word senyoshiyoken — a Japanese word essentially meaning “exclusive use right” — allowed Sunstar to vary the trademark’s font. The court analyzed the agreement and the term’s Japanese meaning and concluded that the right granted was broad enough to permit the licensee to change the font.

In a 2009 Federal Circuit decision, Corebrace LLC v. Star Seismic LLC, the Court considered whether a license to “make” a patented invention inherently includes the right to have the invention made by a third party contract manufacturer.  The court analyzed its own precedent, along with California state law and concluded that a “have made” right is implicit in a right to “make, use and sell” an invention unless the agreement expressly says otherwise.

The licensing of intangible assets is big business.  Situations such as these show the importance of carefully drafting license agreements to avoid ambiguity.

Unless the agreement is clear, the parties can find themselves interpreting the agreement in vastly different ways, with a significant revenues riding on whose interpretation is correct.

Copyright © 2010 Pepper Hamilton LLP

About the Author:

James M. Singer is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group of Pepper Hamilton LLP.  A registered patent attorney, Mr. Singer provides strategic counseling that helps businesses identify, acquire, license, protect and maximize the value of intangible assets.  Mr. Singer is the author and co-author of several publications, and he publishes IP Spotlight, a blog about topics relevant to the intersection of business and intellectual property law, at http://www.ipspotlight.com/. He also is a frequent public speaker on issues relating to technology and the law, and is recognized in Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Licensing 250: The World’s Leading Patent and Technology Licensing Lawyers 2010. 412-454-5023 / www.pepperlaw.com

Fast Track Mastership of Legal Social Media- One Day Seminar / Webinar Oct. 21st Washington DC

The National Law Review would like to make you aware of a one day seminar / webinar presented by MyLegal.com designed to help lawyers gain a fast track mastership of legal social media. 

“I don’t think it’s too late to embrace social networking, it just rather disappoints me that other professions use these technologies, and lawyers for some reason are always rather late to the party. I have little doubt that within five years, social media, social networking systems, will play a central role in the daily lives of lawyers.”  Richard Susskind, September 2010.

The conference will be held on Thursday, October 21, 2010, at the Georgetown University Hotel and Conference Center in Washington, D.C. The conference will sell out at 300 on-site participants, so we will be introducing to the legal community a new technology called SMASH.  This technology aggregates the video stream of the sessions, along with the tweets, blogs and photos related to the conference, in one convenient landing page, allowing off-site attendees to experience the conference in a unique and interactive way.

By following the conference Twitter conversation directly from the SMASH page, off-site attendees can join in the live conversation while simultaneously seeing the speaker and checking out the live conference photos.  These are interactions and connections that might not otherwise have been made. 

After the conference, registered users will have access to the video of the sessions, along with the speaker presentations.  The sessions will also be available via iTunes, allowing registered users to listen and learn while on the way to work, running errands or housework (ugh)!  Multi-tasking is King!  After listening to the sessions, users can continue the conversation and commentary online.

Conference speakers / topics scheduled to be included are:

Matthew Asbell, Esq., Certified Legal Social Media Strategist will speak on the use and protection of trademarks in social media marketing.

Nicole Black, Esq., founder of lawtechTalk.com and co-author of “Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier” will speak on social media for lawyers.

Larry Bodine, Esq., legal marketing expert and author of the Lawmarketing Blog will speak on business development with LinkedIn.

Steve Crandall, J.D., expert in digital media and business applications of social networks will speak on social media and the law.

Adrian Dayton, Esq., author of “Social Media for Lawyers: Twitter Edition” and the “Legal Marketing: Social Media Edition” blog will speak on starting to bringing in business with social media

Carolyn Elefant, Esq., creator of MyShingle.com, the longest running blog on solo and small firm practice, and co-author of “Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier” will speak on social media for lawyers.

Sharon Nelson, Esq., author of the electronic evidence blog “Ride the Lightning” and co-host of the ABA podcast series “The Digital Edge:  Lawyers and Technology” will speak on on social media: ethical, compliance, E-discovery and liability implications.

Conrad Saam, runs marketing for Avvo, where he oversees the firm’s SEM, SEO, social media, online marketing, email and web analytics initiatives will speak on getting the most out of Avvo.

John Simek, co-author of “The Electronic Evidence and Discovery Handbook: Forms, Checklists and Guidelines” and “Information Security for Lawyers and Law Firms” will speak on on social media: ethical, compliance, E-discovery and liability implications.

For more information, conference schedules and registration forms, please visit:  http://mylegalmedia.com or call 253-405-7910.