More and more evidence is being brought to light that competent lawyers need to be able to understand technology to truly be considered competent. Take Model Rule 1.1 as set forth by the ABA, for example. Even though states are not required to include Model Rules in their regulations for lawyers, 49 states have adopted Model Rule 1.1, which states that lawyers must be able to provide competent knowledge to their clients. To be able to provide competent knowledge, the lawyers themselves must fully understand the advice they are imparting. Comment 8, an addition to Model Rule 1.1, addresses the fact that lawyers need to continually educate themselves on the technology relevant to their practice if they are to be considered competent enough to advise on it. While not every state has adopted Comment 8, it is being slowly incorporated by a list of states, a list which will likely grow in the future.

Outside of Comment 8, lawyers are starting to have to deal with issues such as cloud computing and metadata, which often require not only tech advice from experts but also knowledge about ethics regulations. Sometimes permission from regulators must be obtained in order to ask experts. To avoid potential problems, lawyers should look into the opinions on the ethics surrounding each type of technology that have been expressed by their state, which can be found on the ABA’s website. Outside the realm of ethics, many states have expressed opinions on what technological knowledge should be required for lawyers. In 2014, for example, the California Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct stated in their Formal Opinion 2015 that although issues like e-discovery are new, the idea of competency is not, and competent lawyers need to be knowledgeable since “in today’s technological world, every case has the potential to involve e-discovery.”

The world is evolving, and law is starting to catch up as formal regulations are set around technological knowledge. To truly stay competent, lawyers need to be familiar with using technology and stay up to date on the latest news surrounding technology with which their clients may be involved.

Article via The Lawyerist, September 10, 2015

Photo: iPublishing, iReading, iEnjoying via Charis Tsevis [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

In preparation for Legaltech West, a conference on legal technologyfour general counselors from companies in Silicon Valley such as SurveyMonkey and Adobe System were asked to speak on a panel entitled “A Day in the Life: The Role of the Silicon Valley General Counsel”. The moderator for the panel, Dean Gonsowski, global head of information governance at Recommind, thinks that the title is bit misleading. For these lawyers, there’s no such thing as a typical day. Working in an ever-changing environment like Silicon Valley means that these general counselors not only have to be comfortable dealing with traditional tasks, they also have to be able to handle unique and challenging problems every day. However, Gonsowski describes these challenges as just “blips in the radar”.

So what allows these general counselors to continue to do their jobs in an environment driven by constantly-evolving technology? While being knowledgeable about tech is definitely required, preparing for technological problems such as data breaches is considered ordinary in Silicon Valley. Rather, general counselors have to be able to effectively handle unprecedented problems. For example, the general counselor from SurveyMonkey speaking on the panel was able to direct a smooth transition after the CEO was unfortunately lost in an accident, despite not having adequately prepared for such an occurrence. Gonsowski cites her experience working in a fast-paced environment as the reason her and her team were able to handle the situation. These general counselors’ work amidst constant variability and disruption prepares them to handle problems a company much older may not experience at all.

Gonsowki thinks that hearing about these general counselors’ day-to-day lives may inspire people to try to follow in their footsteps. But, based on the fact that virtually any kind of problem can be handed to them, legal counsel in Silicon Valley don’t usually have a set job description or even a normal operating procedure. Therefore, according to Gonsowski, “this level of chaos is not going to be for everybody”.

Article via Legaltech NewsJuly 7, 2015

Photo: oracle via Dave [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

While wearable technology like Google Glass and Fitbit may appear to be better suited to consumer and recreational use, Marc Lambert from the firm Fennemore Craig has been creatively using wearable technology to better understand his clients and skillfully equip his lawyers. Lambert states that the process of introducing and using technology within his practice revolves around a “petri dish mentality”. Technology is routinely integrated into use within Lambert’s group, and then they evaluate whether the technology is benefitting their ability to help their clients. If the technology is found to have a positive impact on their work, other lawyers within the firm begin utilizing the technology.

One of the technologies that is allowing Lambert and his group to better communicate clients’ information is Google Glass. Lambert recounts using Google Glass to document how being a double amputee affects the day-to-day activities of client. Better than simply entering a demand letter or asking the client to describe their situation on the stand, Google Glass “is so effective is because it offered a first-person perspective on the hardships our client encountered each and every day of his life”, according to Lambert. Additionally, Lambert hopes that in future iterations of Google Glass hands-free video conferencing will allow him and his group to communicate with injured or handicapped clients that could not use other technology such as iPads to communicate as easily.

While Google Glass may seem more applicable to particular types of cases, Lambert utilizes Fitbits to determine how evidence may appear to focus jury groups. By asking focus groups to wear Fitbits and monitoring their heart rate as evidence is presented to them, Lambert can build a stronger case for his clients. Additionally, Fitbits could be used to provide support to clients’ claims that they are following their healthcare providers’ recommendations.

Though Lambert agrees that technology is a means to an end, it allows for better representation if “you buy in and aren’t simply paying lip service”. Technology is here to stay and innovation will lead to newer and more complex technologies. Therefore, as Lambert explains, it is  “important to educate other lawyers about how technology can be used and lead by example.”

Article via Above the LawSeptember 17, 2015

Photo: Becoming a cyborg via Jenn Vargas [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

 

The Internet of Things (IoT) is the next revolution in tech. It promises to take devices and connect them together via the internet. Once these devices live together in a network, they will then be able to communicate to each other, machine-to-machine. This level of complexity introduces a new level of legal risk.

As it is today, if something goes wrong with your appliance then you can report to the manufacturer about the faulty product. The Internet of Things will complicate this straightforward matter. In the future, it may be that all parties involved can be held accountable for a product failure. This includes not only the manufacturer, but the internet service provider, the web hosted servers, etc.

This brings up a related issue, user contracts. Due to the legal complications of connecting smart devices, will manufactures for the users to void their contract if their product is connected? At the heart of this concern is data. What will happen if there is a data or security breach? Products connected via Internet of Things will share data. In the event of an attack, who will be legally responsible for the data breach and the fallout?

“The privacy implications are potentially huge,”says Trey Hanbury , an attorney that was interviewed about the formation of Internet of Things ecosystem.

Juniper Research suggest that the internet of things will lead to a more robust security model precisely for this reason. The ideal model would be able to shut down part of the network where an attack is happening without effecting the devices connected to other parts of the network.

What is clear is that lawyers need to get ready for a new period of legal risk and uncertainty due to the IoT revolution. Companies are already heavily investing in building more connected devices. By the year 2020, there is expected to be an infrastructure running that will support a heavily connected world. It will be an exciting time to sort out how the next generation of security and liability will be legally accessed when property has gone digital.

 Article via LegalTechNews, 4 September 2015

Photo: Brooklyn Community Board via Bryan Bruchman[Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

With law firms and their clients facing cyber threats more and more frequently, it makes sense that firms would want to come together and share what information they know about these threats in order that each firm can be better prepared to advise their clients. The Legal Services Information Sharing and Analysis Organization, or LS-ISAO for short, was formed to allow this kind of collaboration between firms. The new alliance is connected with a similar organization, the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Organization, or FS-ISAO, which has been requiring private and public financial sectors to share information on cyber security and other threats since 1999. While LS-ISAO was formed after several law firms contacted the FS-ISAO, not all law firms are eager to join the alliance.

Although any law firms are educating their members on cyber threats or even have teams specifically dedicated to cybersecurity, most law firms guide their response to cyber threats based upon their clients’ opinions. For example, Chanley Howell, a member of the cybersecurity team at Foley & Lardner, isn’t very keen on becoming a part of the alliance, but explains, “If we start hearing clients recommend it, we’ll probably join.” Though it may seem counterintuitive for a cybersecurity team to put off joining an organization created to spread knowledge about cyber threats, Jeremiah Buckley, a founder member of Buckley Sandler who writes about cyber risk, argues that there are some potential drawbacks an organization that shares cybersecurity information so freely. Namely, if a law firm shares what they learned from a cyber threat with the alliance, even though everything is required to be anonymous, other firms could still determine which law firm was involved and then use that information to attack and discredit the firm. On the flip side, firms should be wary of information that is shared anonymously since there is no way to prove that the information is correct. Finally, firms are still competing with one another, and giving someone else a leg up may not always be in a firm’s best interests.

Even though there may be some issues associated with the new alliance, the Legal Services Information Sharing and Analysis Organization is still young. With time, according to the Vice President of Products and Services at the FS-ISAO, trust will develop between its members.

Article via Bloomberg BNA, August 21, 2015

Photo: Two People-Business Meeting via Stephen D [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Larry Lessig is a lawyer, political activist and scholar on a mission to bring important legal research to light. Legal scholars spend many years researching deep topics, such as who is really financing political campaigns, that never make it to the public consciousness. In order to change that, an  event called Hacking iCorruption was created. This is a hackathon meant to attract accomplished programmers, scientists, journalists and academics together to push this research to the internet and into the hands of the public at large.

Lessig launched Safra Research lab in 2010. Since then, the lab has amassed a data from legal research that he believed should be involved in political debate. This mission, combined with investigative reporter Brooke Williams idea for a hackaton, was the spark that created Hacking iCorruption. In the article Williams states, “A lot of us had simple problems that required a technical solution, but we had no budget or ability to hire an expert to solve it.” It became clear that having a hackathon would be the way to bring together the diverse group that they needed.

Due to the success of this hackathon, new ones are springing up. WeCott is a hackathon that has been created to help people organize boycotts and receive crowd funding. Hackathons are a movement according to the organizers of WeCott, and they are focusing on efforts to keep the momentum going in their communities.

 

Article via ABAJournal, 1 September 2015

Photo: Hackathon via Ferderacao das Industrias do Estado de Sao Paulo[Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]