06 Saturday Feb 2016
Posted in Android Phones, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Forensic Evidence, iPhones, Legal Technology, Preservation, Sanctions, Spoilation
≈ Comments Off on Clients – Don’t Wipe That Cell Phone!
Appeals Court Upholds Terminating Sanctions For Wipe of Cell Phone, by Doug Austin, eDiscovery Case Law
In Woodell v. Bernstein, et. al., No. 14-2836 (Cal. App., Dec. 30, 2015), the California Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which imposed terminating sanctions against the plaintiff for spoliation of evidence and dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice after the plaintiff had wiped his cell phone, which was key to the case. . . .
03 Tuesday Mar 2015
Posted in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Android Phones, Appellate Law, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Court Rules, Courts, Federal District Court Rules, iPad, iPhones, Laptop, Legal Technology, Local Rules, Oral Argument
≈ Comments Off on Can You Use iPads or iPhones in Court? Maybe – Maybe Not.
Court Rules on iPhone, iPad Use, by Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog (with hat tip to Ray Ward, Louisiana Civil Appeals Blog)
http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2015/03/court-rules.html
If there are rules for or against using any type of technology in a courtroom, you will normally find the court’s preference in its local rules. Courts don’t write local rules just for fun. They mean it when they say they don’t like something. If your court clearly states in its local rules that certain types of technology are not tolerated, don’t temp fate by assuming that you will be the exception.
Please note the comments at the end of the article. There is more valuable information about other court rules. -CCE
There are countless ways that an iPhone and iPad can be useful to an attorney while in court — whether you are at counsel table or just monitoring proceedings from the cheap seats in back. I often use my iPhone to look up a statute, check my calendar, get some information from an email, or remind myself of the name of another attorney in the courtroom. I often use my iPad to look at a case cited by an opponent, review the key part of an exhibit or transcript, or take notes. But you cannot do any of this unless the court lets you use electronic devices in the courtroom. I remember a time many years ago when the Eastern District of Louisiana did not allow any cell phones, even if turned off, and if my Palm Treo was still in my pocket, I had to walk back to my office, a few blocks away, and leave it there. Many courts are now more lenient, but attorneys should not just assume that it is okay to plan to use an iPhone and iPad in court. Instead, it is wise to first determine if there is an applicable court rule on the issue.
I write about this today because Ray Ward, an appellate attorney at my law firm, has a case that is soon set for oral argument before the U.S. Fifth Circuit, and in connection with that case, yesterday he received a notice from the Fifth Circuit of a new policy on electronic devices in the courtroom. Ray wrote about the notice (and attached a copy) in this post on his Louisiana Civil Appeals blog. In short, you can now have an iPhone or iPad in the courtroom, but it must be turned off unless you are presenting argument or at counsel table. And even then, you cannot take pictures or video, nor can you use social media. . . .
16 Monday Feb 2015
Posted in Android Phones, Attorney Discipline, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Confidentiality, Cybersecurity, E-Filing, Emails, iPad, iPhones, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Malpractice, Office Procedures, Passwords, Rules of Professional Responsibility, Supervising Support Staff, Technology, Technology
≈ Comments Off on Don’t Have A PIN Lock On Your Phone? Hope Your Malpractice Insurance Is Up To Date.
Tags
Android Phones, Confidentiality, Cybersecurity, DARKReading, Ed Hansberry, InformationWeek©, iPhones, Legal Ethics, Malpractice, PIN Lock, Smart Phones
Most Consumers Don’t Lock Mobile Phone Via PIN, by Ed Hansberry, DARKReading, InformationWeek©
My guess is that most people who use a smart phone access some kind of confidential information, such as your bank account or conversations with a client or the office. If you do not have a PIN lock on your smart phone, this truly is special kind of stupid.
This is not a hard one to understand. If you use your cell phone to communicate with clients, sync your phone to your office computer and docket, or attach yourself to your office and confidential information – without taking simple, basic security measures – you are inviting a dangerous breach of confidentiality. -CCE
44% of respondents say it’s too much of a hassle, new survey reports.
People put a lot of sensitive info on their phones, but they often give little though to how secure their data is. In a survey by a security company, over half of the respondents said they didn’t bother with a PIN lock. This takes on a whole new dimension when you begin to understand how many of these people keep corporate data on the device.
Losing an unlocked phone can be far worse than losing a wallet. Emails on the device alone can reveal a wealth of information about the person, including where they bank, where they live, names of family members, and more. If company email is on the device, and it often is, there can be competitive information, salaries, system passwords, etc. If any of those emails contain links, often clicking on it will take you into the website, be it Facebook or a corporate portal.
According to Confident Technologies, 65% of users have corporate data on their phone, even though only 10% actually have a corporate issued device.
For that majority that don’t lock their phone at all, 44% said it is too much of a hassle to lock it and 30% said they weren’t worried about security. These are likely the same people that store things like social security numbers, passwords, and other sensitive information in text files or basic note applications. They may even store their computer’s password on a Post-It Note in their center desk drawer. . . .
01 Monday Dec 2014
Posted in Android Phones, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Clouds, Confidentiality, Emails, Encryption, iPad, iPhones, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Malpractice, PC Computers, Technology
≈ Comments Off on Is Email Between You And Your Client Safe? No, And This Is Why.
Tags
ABA Legal Ethics Opinion, Allen Mihecoby, Email, Encryption, Gmail, Hacking, Internet, Lawyerist Blog, Lisa Needham
How to Encrypt Attorney-Client Communications, by Lisa Needham, Lawyerist Blog (with hat tip to Allen Mihecoby, CLAS, RP!)
If you have decided you need to get serious about client data protection, you will need to consider encrypting both your data and your communications. We have previously covered how to encrypt your data and will focus here on how to encrypt your email communication.
What Is Encryption?
Simply by using the Internet, you are probably using some sort of encryption scheme during some activities, whether you know it or not.
Encryption is simply the act of turning your data into unreadable gibberish. If your data is intercepted or hacked, the thief now has nothing but a pile of garbage.
End-to-end encryption is a must for transferring sensitive data across the internet. In end-to-end encryption, your data is encrypted while it travels towards your intended location and the same encryption occurs on the reverse trip. Your bank (hopefully) uses end-to-end encryption. Your practice management software (hopefully) uses end-to-end encryption if it stores and syncs data remotely. This sort of encryption is done for you without any effort on your part, as it is just a standard feature of the infrastructure you are using to bank or update client data or similar activities.
Why Do You Need to Care?
A few years ago, the ABA issued a formal ethics opinion stating that if there is a significant risk that a third party might gain access to the email, attorneys have to warn clients about that risk.
This poses a problem, because unlike your bank and practice management software, email is usually unencrypted. This is true whether you are using a desktop client or a web-based email like GMail. . . .
26 Wednesday Nov 2014
Posted in Android Phones, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Criminal Law, Evidence, Experts, Forensic Expert Witness, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on Using Location And Time To Exonerate Or Implicate.
Tags
Ball In Your Court Blog, Cell Phones, Cell Towers, Craig Ball, Evidence, Geolocation Data, Legal Technology
Location. Location. Location., by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog
Okay, you have to admit that it’s pretty cool when a judge calls to pick your brain! – CCE
I’m peripatetic. My stuff lives in Austin; but, I’m in a different city every few days. Lately looking for a new place for my stuff to await my return, I’m reminded of the first three rules of real estate investing: 1. Location; 2. Location and 3. Location.
Location has long been crucial in trial, too: ‘So, you claim you were at home alone on the night of November 25, 2014 when this heinous crime was committed! Is that what you expect this jury to believe?’ If you can pinpoint people’s locations at particular times, you can solve crimes. If you have precise geolocation data, you can calculate speed, turn up trysts, prove impairment and even show who had the green light. Location and time are powerful tools to implicate and exonerate.
A judge called today to inquire about ways in which cell phones track and store geolocation data. He wanted to know what information is recoverable from a seized phone. I answered that, depending upon the model and its usage, a great deal of geolocation data may emerge, most of it not tied to making phone calls. Tons of geolocation data persist both within and without phones.
Cell phones have always been trackable by virtue of their essential communication with cell tower sites. . . .
24 Sunday Aug 2014
Posted in Android Phones, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Cybersecurity, iPad, iPhones, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Mac, Passwords, Tablets, Technology, Technology
≈ Comments Off on Survey Says! iPhone Top Choice Among Attorneys.
Tags
ABA Legal Technology Resource Center, Android Phones, Blackberry Phone, iPads, iPhone, iPhone J.D. Blog, Jeff Richardson, Legal Technology, Smartphone Security, Smartphones
2014 ABA Tech Survey Shows More Attorneys Using iPhones, But iPad Use Holds Steady, by Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog
Every year, the ABA Legal Technology Resource Center conducts a survey to gauge the use of legal technology by attorneys in the United States. My thoughts on the prior reports are located here: 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010. No survey is perfect, but the ABA tries hard to ensure that its survey has statistical significance, and every year this is one of the best sources of information on how attorneys use technology. Yesterday, the ABA released Volume VI of the report titled Mobile Lawyers. This year’s report once again shows that a large number of attorneys are using iPhones and iPads.
Six out of ten attorneys now use an iPhone
In both 2014 and 2013, the survey revealed that 91% of attorneys use a smartphone. (In 2012 the number was 89% and in 2011 the number was 88%.) For the past four years, there has been a slight correlation between law firm size and smartphone use. In 2014, for example, 86% of solo attorneys reported using a smartphone, 89% in firms of 2 to 9 attorneys, 95% in firms of 10 to 49 attorneys, and for firms with 100 or more attorneys, 96% use a smartphone. As a whole, though, it is fair to say that the survey consistently shows around nine out of every ten attorneys use a smartphone. . . .
17 Sunday Aug 2014
Posted in Android Phones, Apple, Apps, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Mac, PC Computers, Tablets
≈ Comments Off on Pushbullett App – Connect Instantly Between Computer And Mobile Devices.
App of the Week: Pushbullet- Share Anything Instantly Between Your Electronic Devices, by Lisa Pansini, Legal Productivity Blog
In June’s WWDC Keynote, Apple introduced their new iOS for mobile devices as well as Yosemite, their new Mac operating system (both of which are due sometime in the fall). One of the most talked about features is the way it will connect your computer and mobile devices. Phone calls and SMS can be pushed to your computer, and with the new ‘handoff’ feature you can pass whatever you’re doing from one device to another.
If you don’t own a mac, or you’re just tired of being left of of the Apple loop and would still like to have similar functionality on your devices, download the free Pushbullet app today.
Pushbullet makes it easy to get files, links, and more from your computer to your phone or vice versa. You can also send information from one mobile device to another (e.g. phone to tablet) and anyone else who uses the app. All it requires is a chrome or firefox plugin for your computer and an active gmail account. Once the plugins are configured, you can use it to push links to your other devices, or go to Pushbullet.com to send files, notes, lists, or addresses.
Android and Windows devices have full use of the app’s abilities, but Apple devices are currently lacking the “notification mirroring” feature that allows you to receive your sms, phone calls, and other app notifications on your computer. While a major bummer, the Pushbullet website mentions that this feature is coming soon!
All other push notifications show up instantly on your desktop or your mobile device, making the Pushbullet app perfect for anyone who wants a seamless way to stay on top of their notifications. Pushbullet is currently available for iOS and android devices. You can download the apps and necessary plugins directly from Pushbullet’s website.
27 Sunday Jul 2014
Posted in Android Phones, Appellate Law, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Computer Forensics, Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Experts, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Expert Witness, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Google, Internet, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Mac, PC Computers, Privacy, Search Warrants, Tablets, Trial Tips and Techniques, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
≈ Comments Off on Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.
Tags
Computers, Email, Evidence, Forensic Experts, Gmail, Google, Hard Drives, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, Money Laundering, Search & Seizure, Warrants
In a landmark ruling that might fuel a nationwide debate, the New York Court issued a warrant against Google, giving access to user emails.
A New York Court issued a warrant against Google Inc ruling that the government can access all mails of a Gmail account of an individual under a money laundering probe. The judge said that courts have long been waiting for law enforcement to take the required documents in the custody if it is within the purview of the warrant.
Contrary to previous rulings
This decision is not in line with the previous court rulings including courts in the Districts of Columbia and Kansas, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York noted on Friday. Also, this latest ruling will spark a debate over the privacy, in the country, according to Computer World.
A District of Columbia judge denied from revealing the entire content of the email as this will seize a large amount of emails for which the authorities have not given any reason.
The Court in Kansas, also, did not rule in favor of a similar warrant, stating that it failed to ‘limit the universe of electronic communications and information to be turned over to the government to the specific crimes being investigated.’
However, the New York Court ruled in favor of such warrant, allowing authorities to take into account the emails and other information from a Google inc’s Gmail account, including the address book and draft mails, and also the authority to search the emails for certain specific categories of evidence.
Experts must scan emails, not Google employee
Judge Gorenstein argued that it is not possible to search the hard-disk drives of computers and other storage devices on the spot due to the complexities of electronic searches. Thus, the authorities can seize such storage.
‘We perceive no constitutionally significant difference between the searches of hard drives just discussed and searches of email accounts,’ the judge wrote. He added that in most of the cases data in an email account will be less ‘expansive’ compared to the information contained in the hard drive.
Judge Gorenstein stated that Google employees are not expert enough to know the importance of particular emails without having been given proper training in the substance of the investigation. Judge said this in response to an opinion by the District of Columbia court that gave the government the option of getting the email scanned by the host itself.
He said that an agent, who is completely absorbed in the investigation, will be able to understand the importance of a particular language in emails contrary to the employee.
01 Tuesday Jul 2014
Posted in Android Phones, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Clouds, Computer Forensics, Confidentiality, Cybersecurity, Disaster Preparedness, Emails, Encryption, Google, Intellectual Property, iPad, iPhones, Law Office Management, Legal Blogs, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Mac, Management, Marketing, Passwords, PC Computers, Social Media, Supervising Support Staff, Tablets, Technology, Using Social Media
≈ Comments Off on Is It Time For A “Bring Your Own Device” Policy for Your Law Office?
Tags
Apple, Blackberry Phone, Cell Phones, Confidentiality, Curo Legal Blog, Cybersecurity, iPads, iPhones, Legal Ethics, Mobile Device Policy, Passwords, Tablets, Will Harrelson
Mobile Device Security for Lawyers: How Solos and Small Firms can Ethically Allow Bring Your Own Device, by Will Harrelson, Curo Legal Blog (with hat tip to Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog!)
The Start of Bring Your Own Device Policies
It really is the iPhone’s fault. Yes, Apple is to blame for designing the most desirable piece of technology of the last decade. So desirable, in fact, that employees of all stripes requested (and, often, begged) their IT departments to toss the increasingly-‘corporate’ Blackberry out the window and allow the use of their personal iPhones for corporate emails and calls. As a result, we have been living in the age of ‘Bring Your Own Device’ where employees use a single personal mobile phone (or tablet) for both their personal email, texting, and social media while also using it for work email, word processing, and other enterprise applications.
Before the Bring Your Own Device era, a company’s greatest out-of-office security concern was an employee who left a briefcase in a taxi. Today, the worry is an employee misplacing a device the size of wallet containing almost limitless amounts of data that criminals or hackers would easily and quickly exploit if given the chance. Clearly, there is an obvious financial motivation for all businesses to protect their own or customer’s sensitive data.
However, lawyers face particular ethical consequences if they fail to take reasonable efforts to either investigate the technologies that they implement or protect their client’s confidential information. . . .
28 Saturday Jun 2014
Posted in Android Phones, Appellate Law, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, iPhones, Legal Technology, Search Warrants, United States Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on The U.S. Supreme Court’s Recent Cell Phone Ruling.
Tags
Cell Phones, Fred Barash, Judge Learned Hand, Search Warrants, U.S. Supreme Court, Warrantless Search, Washington Post
The Scary Part Of The Supreme Court’s Cellphone Ruling, by Fred Barash, The Washington Post
That Supreme Court ruling on cellphones was supposed to be reassuring. The government needs a warrant to search your phone, the court ruled.
But read Riley vs. California more closely and it’s just a little scary — particularly for those who pay little attention to what’s on their smartphones. If you don’t think your phone exposes your life-all of it-take it from the nation’s highest court.
Your phone, says the court, is your life. Cracking it open is even more revealing than rummaging through your home, which the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches was designed to protect. . . .
10 Monday Feb 2014
Posted in Android Phones, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Tablets
≈ Comments Off on Will Kill Switches Stop Cell Phone Theft?
Tags
Angela Moscaritolo, Apple, California, Cell Phone Theft, Cell Phones, CTIA, Kill Switch, PC Magazine, Samsung, San Francisco Attorney General George Gascón, Senator Mark Leno, Smartphone Theft
Calif. Bill Would Require Cell Phone Kill Switches, by Angela Moscaritolo, PC Magazine
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2430471,00.asp
Cell phone theft is a growing problem, but a group of California lawmakers think they have a solution.
State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) on Friday is expected to introduce legislation requiring all smartphones and tablets sold in the state to contain a so-called “kill switch,” which would render the device inoperable if it was lost or stolen. The bill, which is sponsored by San Francisco Attorney General George Gascón, would apply to any device sold after Jan. 1, 2015. . . .
19 Sunday Jan 2014
Posted in Android Phones, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Legal Technology
≈ Comments Off on
Tags
Android Phones, Blackberry, Google LG Nexus 5, iPhone J.D. Blog, iPhone5s, iPhones, Jeff Richardson, Nerino J. Petro Jr., Samsung Galaxy X4, Wisconsin Lawyer
101: Smart Phone Wars 2014: Apple vs. Android, by Nerino J. Petro Jr., Wisconsin Lawyer (with hat tip to Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog)
The IT techs I know swear by iPhones and iPads. Lawyer friends say Android is the way to go. Both have cool apps – more than I would probably ever need. My personal experience is limited to iPhones.
This article compares the top three phones: iPhone5s, Google LG Nexus 5, and Samsung Galaxy X4. Which one would you choose? -CCE
The Researching Paralegal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.