Listen to Perry Segal’s interview on Cloud Privacy & Attorney Ethics on KUCI 88.9 FM
Category Archives: Law Practice Management
Perry Segal Discusses the Cloud, Privacy & Attorney Ethics on KUCI Irvine 88.9FM – Monday, Nov. 12th at 8:00 a.m. PST
I guess the headline says it all, except I'd like to add that the interview will also be available as a podcast via iTunes. I will also post an MP3 here Monday.
Here's a few of the additional details:
Privacy Piracy (88.9FM and www.kuci.org), a half-hour public affairs show with no
commercials broadcasts from the University of California, Irvine campus on
Mondays from 8:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time. To learn more
about the show and listen to archived interviews, please visit www.kuci.org/privacypiracy.
Clint Eastwood Honors New @CalBarLPMT Chair
#CalBarAM12: From Hash Tag to App!
If you're attending the State Bar of California 85th Annual Meeting this week in Monterey – or want to stay abreast of the action (because as you know, lawyers are synonymous with action…) there's an app for that. Available for both Apple and Android devices, you can monitor the #CalBarAM12 hash tag on the fly, organize your meeting/CLE/reception calendar, find maps to various meeting locations and the city itself, share contacts dynamically and a whole lot more!
Folks, the Bar's effort here is truly impressive. I'm very proud of my colleagues who made this happen. Plus, the LPMT Section's Social Media SubCommittee gets a little credit as well – we named it and also created the companion hash tag.
Soon, our Section will release our own app, so stay tuned for that announcement as well. In the meantime, safe travels!
eDiscovery California: Upcoming Presentations: CalBar 85th Annual Mtg
Why have I been missing in action the past couple of weeks? Because I over-committed, that's why! Note to self: Don't propose two presentations for the CalBar 85th Annual Meeting, thinking that only one will be selected…WRONG!!! So, to kick-off my re-appearance on this blawg, here are my two upcoming presentations in Monterey:
eDiscovery eVolution: Crawl, Walk, then Run Your Case! (Program 25)
Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:15 p.m.-5:15 p.m.
Strategy matters, and litigation is a term of art and a
little showmanship. Learn how to strategize during a case to get the
most out of each other for the clients' benefit.
Presenters: Perry L. Segal, Derick Roselli
CLE: 1.0 Hour General Credit
This is going to be a good one, because I'm taking the role of attorney (type-casting) and my LPMT colleague, Derick Roselli, takes the role of technology expert; which is his true specialty at HP/Autonomy. We're going to do a walk-through of a case from the perspective of the attorney consulting with his expert on a case, from start to finish.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Cloud: Secure? Yes. Ethical? Not so FAST! (Program 50)
Friday, October 12, 2012 10:30 a.m.-12 noon
It's essential to conduct due diligence regarding a
vendor's security practices to insure the confidentiality of client
data. Even if the data is believed to be secure, it may violate an
attorney's legal/ethical obligations. Learn the next step– assuring
client communications are secure and ethical.
Presenters, Perry L. Segal, Donna Seyle
CLE: 1.5 Hours of Which 1.0 Hour Applies to Legal Ethics
Donna Seyle is another of my LPMT colleagues, and we're going to do a practical examination of attorney ethics rules – both ABA and California – as they pertain to data and social media interaction in the cloud. Our goal is to explain to attorneys how even a secure cloud may violate ethical obligations to the client if additional precautions are not followed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I 'officially' assume the Chairmanship of LPMT at noon, Sunday, October 14th. Here we go!
eDiscovery California: Proposed Formal Opinion 10-0003 (VLO) is now Formal Opinion CAL 2012-184
Attorneys, please take note: The State Bar of California Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 10-0003 (Virtual Law Office) has been adopted as Formal Opinion CAL 2012-184 (link opens 7-page pdf). If you missed it the first go-round, I highly recommend that you familiarize yourselves with this opinion.
I can lead you to the water (but I can't force you to make the Kool-Aid).
Public Comment Requested: CalBar Board Committee of Member Oversight Asks, “What is an MCLE?”
As stated in the headline, The State Bar of California Board Committee on Member Oversight seeks to amend the definition of what qualifies for proper MCLE credit in the state of California. Apparently, some confusion has arisen regarding whether CLE programs may only contain substantive law versus whether they may encompass other ares of law practice and/or law practice management. Here's the issue in Calbar's language:
"The proposed rule amendment clarifies and eliminates ambiguity as to what constitutes permissible and credit-worthy MCLE. Additionally, the change also expands the scope of acceptable MCLE to programs and activities that relate directly to the management and operation of a member’s law office and to mediation training."
Concurrently, CalBar's Task Force on Admissions is in the process of evaluating the implementation of a pre-admission practical skills training program.
Folks, these issues are near & dear to my heart. Obviously, as the incoming Chair of CalBar's LPMT Section, I have a few opinions on this subject. Considering that most law schools don't spend much time focusing on what successful candidates should do once they arrive in the real world of law practice, I feel that limiting continuing legal education offerings to substantive law-only would be a huge detriment to newbie attorneys as well as veterans. At least, that's what we see from the attendance at our CLE programs.
Therefore, I ask that you examine the proposed amendment, then make your voices heard. Public comment remains open through September 8th, 2012.
Some Solo Summit Summaries
As I mentioned yesterday, I'd intended to write this post earlier in the week. The Solo Summit ended this past Saturday and I wouldn't want the information to become stale; but this isn't that kind of post. Yes, I'll tell you all about the Summit, but your takeaway should be that, if you're a solo or true small firm in California, you really should consider attending next year's Summit. Since it began in 2009, its been growing every year – and for good reason.
Here's a sample of the education you had to choose from: Marketing your practice, balancing your personal/professional life, avoiding discipline, mediation, setting up a litigation war room, health care, the iPad in law practice, human resources and risk management, fee arbitration, free legal resources for lawyers, emerging practice areas, client trust accounts, employment, privacy, confidentiality & security (my presentation), elimination of bias, estate planning, bankruptcy, avoiding malpractice, eDiscovery, tax, appellate practice, family law, expedited jury trials, time management and IP.
There was CLE credit available in all specialty areas. That's a lot of bang for the buck! Naturally, as the incoming Chair of LPMT, I was curious what attendees thought of the programs. I have to say that virtually all of the feedback was positive.
And my program? The room was completely full (I estimated about 75 people) and again, feedback was extremely positive (as usual, I didn't finish). In fact, I can't recall a presentation I've done that resulted in as much follow-up by attendees as this one. I'm not sure if it was due to the material or the type of conference. But, I did receive many questions about cloud security and was pleased to inform those people that I – along with my LPMT colleague, Donna Seyle – will be presenting on that very subject at the State Bar's Annual Meeting in October; and it'll be 90 minutes. Maybe we'll actually get through our entire program!
So, why do I highly recommend the Solo Summit? We estimated attendance at about 285, and a prime benefit was the relative intimacy of the conference that allowed people to mingle and meet at breakfast & lunch (which were provided), during breaks and of course, in the evenings. As much as I enjoy the annual meeting, it's much larger and those types of impromptu conversations are much more difficult to achieve because you're always on your way…somewhere.
What would I do differently? Move the coffee bar next to the stage. That way, people would never leave…
e-Discovery California: Upcoming Presentation: CalBar Solo Summit
Just a reminder that Friday, June 22nd, 2012 from 9:45 – 10:45 am, I'll be presenting Program 16: They See You When You're Sleeping: Attorney Privacy Confidentiality & Security for one hour of specialty ethics MCLE credit at the State Bar of California Solo & Small Firm Summit, which is being held this year at the Renaissance Hotel in Long Beach. Here's a brief synopsis:
A preview of the soon-to-be-published book, “Growing and Maintaining Your Law Office”. Attendees will learn about ethical obligations to protect attorney-client privacy, confidentiality and security — both personally and via the smart-phones, computers & software they use daily.
I look forward to seeing you there!
eDiscovery California: Formal Opinion Interim No. 10-0001 (Social Networking) Raises an ‘Adject’ Issue
First, my disclaimer: This is a State Bar of California Opinion – and I'm Vice-Chair of their Law Practice Management & Technology Section Executive Committee (LPMT). I want to remind you, "This blog site is published by and reflects the personal views of Perry L. Segal, in his individual capacity. Any views expressed herein have not been adopted by the State Bar of California's Board of Trustees or overall membership, nor are they to be construed as representing the position of the State Bar of California."
The last time I analyzed one of these, it pertained to VLOs. I found that Opinion much more difficult to address. Formal Opinion Interim No. 10-0001 (Social Networking) is easier in some respects, because its main purpose is to apply current California rules (specifically, Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1-400 Advertising and Solicitation and sections of the Business and Professions Code) to what it refers to as, "social media websites". That's where the trouble begins; with the adjective. We'll get to that in a moment.
There's no reason for me to do a dissertation on 1-400. California attorneys should already be familiar with this Rule (or they can look it up, above). Suffice it to say, for our purposes, this can be like Jeopardy, because we need ask ourselves two questions:
- What is a communication?
- If a posting is determined to be a communication, is it an advertisement or solicitation?
The only major problem I have with the document is Footnote Two on Page One (link opens the 6-page PDF). It attempts to describe Facebook "friending" as an example of what it considers a "controlled" group. It doesn't seem to take into account that, like Twitter, et al, your control group can republish your post (e.g. Re-tweeting). My view? Continue to treat your posts as if they're visible to the entire world!
Page Five reminds us of Rule 1-400(F): "…the Committee notes that a true and correct copy of any “communication” must be retained by Attorney for two years. Rule 1-400(F) expressly extends this requirement to communications made by “electronic media.” If Attorney discovers that a social media website does not archive postings automatically, then Attorney will need to employ a manual method of preservation, such as printing or saving a copy of the screen." [italics added]
Gulp! How many of you remembered that part of the Rule?
Concluding, the Opinion has an adject(ive) issue. It refers to "social media websites", but it also refers (as it should, in my opinion) to general attorney websites. If I were to make one glaring modification to this document, it would be to find the phrase, "social media website(s)" wherever it appears, and replace it with, simply, "websites".
The qualifier serves no purpose.
By the way, if you'd like to comment on the Opinion, the 90-day period is open through 5pm, July 2nd, 2012.