Legal firms remain concerned about cloud privacy

December 4, 2015 Astrid Countee Leave a comment Legal News, Privacy, Privacy & Data Protection, Tech, Tech for Justice

Lawyers are a conservative group when it comes to adopting new technology. This continue to hold true for the ever popular cloud technologies. Concerns about privacy and security related to data breaches are holding some firms back from transitioning over to cloud storage and services. In a 2015 Cloud Security Survey released Netwrix reveals the concerns around cloud adoption among lawyers include: security and privacy of data (26 percent), migration costs (22 percent) and loss of physical controls (17 percent). Moreover, security risks include unauthorized access (32 percent), insider misuse (18 percent) and account hijacking (18 percent.)

Alex Vovk, CEO and co-founder of Netwrix, told Legaltech News “Legal departments will be reluctant to entrust their valuable data and customers’ sensitive information, until they are absolutely sure that cloud providers can offer better security than the company can ensure on-premises.” Although data security is a privacy issue for all industries, legal departments are less likely to adopt technologies that do not guarantee full protection for their data.

Law firms may be cautious, but that doesn’t mean that they are uninterested in cloud technologies. According to the survey, 44 percent of the respondents indicated they their firms were in a stage of evaluation and discovery concerning cloud services. “This indicates that [law firms] are potentially ready to invest more in additional cloud security and consider various cloud options,” Vovk said. In fact, when it comes to hybrid cloud models, legal entities have the same interest in making the transition as private companies. In addtion, 37 percent of those surveyed favor a private cloud model.

Vovk summed up by stating that “… as soon as cloud providers are ready to provide additional security measures and to some extent ease the compliance burden …lawyers would become less skeptic[al] about cloud adoption.”

Article via Legaltech News, 3 December 2015

Photo: Cloud Solutions via NEC Corporation of America [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

UN launches ideathon for college students to address gender-related violence

December 3, 2015 Abby Shulman Leave a comment Education, Human Rights

The United Nations is launching an “ideathon” for college students in an effort to address the issue of violence against women and LGBTQ people on university campuses. All of today, students are meeting in two to six hour long “physical brainstorming sessions” with the intention of addressing a key question: “How would you create a culture of transparency on college campuses to end gender-based violence?”

The event is part of the UN’s 16 Days of Activism initiative, under the umbrella campaign of HeForShe, which seeks to incorporate men into the movement for gender equality. HeForShe is providing students participating in the ideathon with a list of realistic suggestions in order to facilitate conversation about implementable changes in campus policies.

According to the UN, one in three women have experienced physical and sexual violence, and one in four are sexually assaulted in college. Moreover, LGBTQ people face double the risk of experiencing gender-based violence in college than their heterosexual peers.

HeForShe advertised the event in a video featuring a college student espousing his school pride: “We can make it somewhere we all feel safe—proud of how we got here, what we learned. We can speak out and never be a bystander.”

Article via Mashable, 3 December 2015

Photo: Visiting Artist: Robert Kraft via Berklee Valencia Campus [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Keep it in the ground movement tries to postpone oil and gas auction

December 3, 2015 Astrid Countee Leave a comment Enviro Justice, Government

On December 10th the U.S. Bureau of Land Management plans to hold an auction for parcels of land in Michigan and Arkansas. The purpose? Leasing by the federal government of publicly owned lands to private companies, often resulting in drilling for oil and gas.

According to the National Wildlife Federation, the American public collectively owns nearly 650 million acres of public land and the fossil fuels beneath it. It also owns more than 1.7 billion acres of Outer Continental Shelf lands that also contain oil and gas resources.  The government holds these auctions regularly, but the upcoming auction on December 10th conspicuously coincides with the final days of the U.N. Climate Summit in Paris.  As a result, the Keep it in the Ground movement is trying to pressure President Obama to cancel this auction.

Keep it in the Ground is a movement of environmental organizations that are aiming to slow climate change by keeping remaining fossil fuels in the ground, instead of available for burning and drilling. The participating organizations include large groups such as 350.org, CREDO, the Indigenous Environmental Network and Greenpeace USA. The movement has been successful in getting the support of seven Democratic senators, including Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. These senators have introduced the Keep It in the Ground Act which came after organizations associated with the movement sent signed a letter addressed to President Obama urging him to stop new federal leasing of fossil fuels.

Jason Kowalski, U.S. policy director at 350.org, has criticized the president for allowing federal leasing auctions to continue while rallying other nations to fight against climate change. “Here we are, negotiating a climate treaty in Paris, and the core point of this treaty is keeping fossil fuels in the ground,” Kowalski told Mashable. “In the midst of that, we’re holding an auction, and the government itself is selling fossil fuels to the highest bidder?”

Obama has cited the need to keep some fossil fuels unburned, and on Nov. 6, he rejected the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a landmark decision seen as a major victory for environmentalists. “They’ve been bragging about it in Paris,” Kowalski said. “…but it’s really hypocritical to be bragging about the Keystone decision in Paris and at the same time be selling fossil fuels to the highest bidder in Washington, D.C., during the final days of negotiations.”

If Obama does not cancel the Dec. 10 auction, groups associated with the Keep it in the Ground movement are planning to hold a rally and press conference outside of the auction site on that date.

 

Article via Mashable, 3 December 2015

Photo: FERC Protest via A Jones [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Boyden report shows need for technology officers

December 2, 2015 Shelby Bice Leave a comment Tech

With companies and law firms around the world encountering problems with how to deal with cybersecurity, it’s no surprise that a report released by the international executive search firm Boyden indicates a growing need for technology officers. Not only that, but a statement released by Tim McNamara, co-founder of Boyden’s Risk Management and Security Sector, reveals that finding technology officers who are knowledgeable about all the intricacies of cybersecurity is difficult. McNamara states, “It’s a very complicated sector with bifurcated responsibilities. Consequently, there are multiple strategies to address cybersecurity needs among the commercial, military and defense, and intelligence segments.”

Basically, each company is going to face different risks when it comes to cybersecurity, and each company needs a unique strategy to prevent cyber attacks. Companies are especially in need of technology officers that can also hold leadership positions. It’s important for executives and other officials to be tech-savvy and understand the importance of cybersecurity, since the effects of a cyber attack are not limited to the IT department. Richard Fudickar, managing partner of Boyden Germany, explains that, “management must understand that this issue is about people and behaviors, not just technology.” This involves trusting chief information security officers and and chief security officers to influence executive decisions and be an active part of senior leadership teams. Ken Rich, a partner at Boyden New York, sums it up, saying, “Companies that have embraced the strategy of giving the CISO (Chief Information Security Officer) a seat at the executive table are better equipped to prepare for any breaches in cybersecurity.”

Finding technology officers with the leadership skills necessary to fill that seat may be hard to find, though. The Boyden report indicates that more than half of companies do not feel that they employ enough security officers. Companies may have to start hiring additional technology officers to fulfill the growing need to understand cybersecurity.

Article via Legaltech News, December 1, 2015

Photo: In the Digital Age via Ohad Ben-Yoseph [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

NSA ceases bulk data collection

December 2, 2015 Astrid Countee Leave a comment Cybercrime, Government, In the Law, Legal News, News, Security

The National Security Agency has been collecting metadata, which is information such as phone numbers and duration of calls, since shortly after the attacks of September 11. The collection of this metadata has ceased as of November 28th. So what changed?

There is a new law in place, known as the USA Freedom Act of 2015. This law is being seen as a victory for privacy activists and tech companies looking to protect their user data. The USA Freedom Act of 2015 came about as a response to the revelations of Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor that revealed the deep surveillance of the NSA on the American people. This new law prohibits the bulk collection of phone data previously done by the NSA. Although the agency won’t keep the bulk data, investigators will still have access to these types of records when they are investigating a particular person, or targeting specific groups. The existing metadata that has been captured during the last 5 years will be kept until next February 29th in order to ensure a smooth transition.

National Security Council spokesperson Ned Price stated that this new law, “struck a reasonable compromise which allows us to protect the country while implementing various reforms”.

Some have concerns, since the new law is going into effect so soon after the terrorist attacks in Paris. At a time when America is scaling back its surveillance, countries like England and France are considering new bills to enhance surveillance. Since American companies like Verizon would be involved, it may mean the creation of new treaties between Great Britain and the United States.  It is likely that this type of confounding circumstance will present itself more in the future due to the international nature of terrorism.

Article via ABAJournal, 30 November 2015

Photo: National Security Agency Seal via Donkey Hotey [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Private Capital for Funding Law Firms Serving Low and Moderate Income Clients

December 1, 2015 Christy Leos Leave a comment Business, Economy, Finance, In the Law, News

By Richard Granat

One of the obstacles to the development of innovative software solutions that automate part of the legal service delivery process resulting in lower, more affordable legal fees is the absence of capital. Traditional methods of legal service delivery based on hourly billing rates out of reach for low and moderate income clients.  Capital investment is required to create innovative web-based software solutions that can enable low and moderate income clients to either solve legal problems on their own as pro-se litigants, or to enable law firms to offer legal solutions at a more affordable price point.

The major obstacle to making more capital available to law firms, is the prohibition on investment in law firms by nonlawyers enshrined in the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Responsibility and replicated in the state rules of professional responsibility that regulate lawyers in their state. [ See Rule 5.4 – Professional Independence of a Lawyer ].

There has been little innovation within solo and smaller law firms to develop client-centered, web-based applications that provide a low cost solution to low and moderate income clients. Instead innovation is centered in the vendor community that provides tools to law firms, usually as a SaaS service for a monthly subscription fee. A good example is our own DirectLaw virtual law firm platform that provides a client-centered document automation application, and other tools that enables a law firm to unbundled legal services for a fixed fee to clients online. While the value of innovation outside of the law firm, within the vendor sector of the legal industry, is not to be minimized, it is the lawyer within the law firm that has the most nuanced view about what their clients need and want. The lawyer within the law firm also has the primary interest in figuring out how to develop and manage the delivery of legal services so that for certain kinds of legal problems a scalable, volume-based business model can be implemented.

Innovation requires capital. It is capital intensive to develop software applications and new delivery systems for legal services. Solos and small law firms that serve individuals and families do not have access to capital. Whatever innovation is taking place in the delivery of legal services is happening outside of the legal profession in organizations like LegalZoom financed by venture capital, or the within legal aid programs funded in part by the Technology grant program within the Legal Services Program, or outside of the United States. [See also, blog post from Lexicata – How Law Firms Can be More Like LegalZoom ].

There has been much controversial discussion with the legal profession on modifying the ownership rules that apply to law firms, with little result. For example, the American Bar Association created last year a Commission on the Future of Legal Services to address the access to justice problem, under the under the leadership of then ABA-President William C. Hubbard.   The Commission convened a National Summit on Innovation in Legal Services, in May 2015 where private investment in law firms as a prerequisite to innovation was on the agenda. But I have yet to see any progress on this issue within the American Bar Association. Unlike other countries, private investment in law firms as a way to develop new ways of serving a latent market for legal services is dead on arrival when it reaches the ABA’s House of Delegates, although 80% of the U.S. population can’t afford the cost of legal services and is unserved by the legal profession.

The evidence we have seen in the United Kingdom, where the legal profession has moved towards de-regulation, and where capital can flow freely into law firms, suggests that the United States will remain a laggard in innovation in the delivery of legal services until this problem can be fixed. In the UK, LegalZoom is taking advantage of this de-regulation by becoming an ABS [ Alternative Business Structure ].  As a private company, operating in the UK, LegalZoom can offer legal services directly to the public. LegalZoom plans to use this opportunity to develop and experiment with new end-to-end legal services for consumers with the idea that in the far distant future these innovations can be imported into the U.S. legal market.

The bottom line is that you can’t really innovate without access to capital – it is the fuel of innovation. For solo and small law firms that serve people, rather than large corporations, capital is not available for innovation unless the lawyer or law firm has generated capital from their practice and makes a conscious decision to invest in software automation and web-based solutions.

An example of a law firm that has accumulated capital (because of litigation against the mortgage servicing companies and the banks in the robo-signing scandal during the U.S foreclosure crisis) is IceLegal, P.A., a small law firm based in Florida. IceLegal, under the leadership of Thomas Ice, is launching its own access to justice initiative.  The firm has also created its own LegalYou video channel for educating pro-se litigants.  This is a project of the law firm (not of a private company), and will  provide low cost legal solutions to Florida residents. If LegalYou is a success it will serve a new latent market ignored by most of Florida’s law firms. LegalYou is the exception rather than the rule.

One would think that Internet-savvy, recent law school graduates would be motivated to serve a latent market for legal services by developing innovative solutions, but handicapped by large student loans they are forced into career roles that provide sufficient cash flow to amortize those loans. Risk-taking is not an option for them.

A Proposal: Safe Harbor for Law Firms Serving Low and Moderate Income Clients

To increase the flow of capital to law solos and small law firms who wish to serve only low and moderate income clients with automated legal solutions, I propose that:

  • The American Bar Association amend Rule 5.4 to permit private investment in just those law firms that serve low and moderate income clients exclusively.
  • Personal injury and other contingent fee practices would be excluded from this exception as capital is self-generating for successful firms in these practice areas.
  • To comfort those who are concerned that the independence of the lawyer is compromised by this proposal, the law firm must remain at least a 51% owner of the law firm. Private investors can be minority shareholders only.
  • It is relatively easy to create an income generation screen to capture just low and moderate income clients for the law firm, and exclude those of higher income. The data from this intake process can be archived and audited to comply with the exception to the rule.

Creating this exception opens up the opportunity for smaller law firms to take advantage of crowd-funding opportunities, the angel investor community, and the new SEC rules that permit crowd-funding investment. Further, the rich relatives and friends (if they exist) of a young lawyer could fund the new lawyer’s law firm, and get a return on investment, without the lawyer risking disbarment because of violation of the 5.4.

An argument can also be made that enabling law firms that serve primarily corporate entities can create capital on their own without additional incentives and should not be able to take advantage of this safe harbor. Most large law firms represent corporate entities (banks, insurance companies, health care organizations, drug companies,  manufacturers, financial organizations) whose legal positions are opposed to many consumer interests.  These firms should have to use their own capital to become more efficient so as not to tip the balances against the consumer even more than it is.

One would think that this modest proposal to enable innovation designed to increase access to the legal system for clients who can’t afford the high cost of legal fees would be an idea that that American Bar Association and state bar associations might entertain or even discuss.

However, given that the structure of regulation of the legal profession is controlled by the legal profession, this idea will probably be dead on arrival.

Article via eLawyering Blog, 4 December 2015

Photo: the shadow of justice via Jack [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]