Tag Archives: Emails

Email Spam or Have I Got A Deal For You!

25 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by in Emails, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Technology

≈ Comments Off on Email Spam or Have I Got A Deal For You!

Tags

, , ,

The Holidays Bring More Email Threats, by Jim Calloway, Jim Calloway’s Law Practice Tips Blog

http://www.lawpracticetipsblog.com/2016/11/holidays-bring-email-threats.html

I may be the luckiest person in the world. I receive emails almost daily from people I do not know who want to give me money. I’ve won the lottery or I’m offered a fantastic job as a “mystery shopper.” And, boy, do I win a lot of stuff! Of course, none of this is true.

On the flip side, the tone may be more menacing. Emails from banks and credit cards saying they need me to respond to address a delinquent account or that someone has used my account. I do not have accounts with these folks.

Even with my firewall and my attempts to avoid viruses, Trojan horses, and other attacks on my computer, bogus emails and spam walk right in. I block these emails, mark them as “junk,” and they still come. I suspect many of you get the same things.

Make no mistake. You and I are targets. -CCE

Litgation Hold – Too Little Too Late.

25 Thursday Feb 2016

Posted by in Cell Phones, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Emails, Legal Technology, Litigation Hold, Municipal Law, Open Records Act, Preservation, Requests for Production, Sanctions

≈ Comments Off on Litgation Hold – Too Little Too Late.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Our Nation’s Largest City is Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Law, eDiscovery daily Blog

http://bit.ly/1Rqmnc0

In Stinson v. City of New York, 10 Civ. 4228 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2016), New York District Judge Robert W. Sweet granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence against the defendants for failure to issue a litigation hold, opting for a permissive inference rather than a mandatory adverse inference sanction against the defendants .

Case Background

In this civil rights class action against the City of New York, it was determined that the City did not issue any litigation hold until August 8, 2013, more than three years after the filing of the Complaint in this case and the litigation hold was not effectively communicated, and none of the officers who were named in the City’s initial disclosures acknowledged receiving it. . . .

Continue reading →

Were Deleted Emails A Failure to Preserve?

15 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Preservation

≈ Comments Off on Were Deleted Emails A Failure to Preserve?

Tags

, , , , ,

Prejudice and to Avoid “Confusing the Issues,” by Electronic Discovery Law, K&L Gates Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ndmfrlx

West v. Talton, No. 5:13-cv-338 (CAR), 2015 WL 6675565 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2015)

In this case, the court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude ‘Plaintiff’s use of any argument or evidence of alleged spoliation’ where, despite Defendants’ failure to preserve emails from an individual defendant, they were nonetheless able to locate the relevant defendant’s ‘old computer’ and to hire a third party to search for and recover relevant emails and documents from the same. . . .

Continue reading →

Do You Ever CC Clients On Emails? Here’s Why You Shouldn’t.

28 Friday Nov 2014

Posted by in Confidentiality, Emails, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Malpractice, Office Procedures, Rules of Professional Responsibility

≈ Comments Off on Do You Ever CC Clients On Emails? Here’s Why You Shouldn’t.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Don’t CC Clients on Emails, by Sam Glover, Lawyerist Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mrm3ucz

This one seems like a no-brainer, but I suspect many lawyers and paralegals alike have not realized the danger in this practice. -CCE

As a general rule, you should not CC your clients on emails.

First, because it gives every other recipient a chance to communicate directly with your client. In fact, it looks like an invitation to do so. Opposing counsel should know better, but even they might use Reply All accidentally, accidentally-on-purpose, or maybe even intending — albeit misguidedly — to be helpful.

In the case of recipients who are not bound by the rules of professional responsibility, you can hardly be surprised if they take the inclusion of your client’s email address as an invitation to keep them in the conversation or communicate with them directly. And remember that the recipient might forward your email, giving anyone not already included the chance to do so. This could be harmless if your email is related to a friendly business transaction. It could also be disastrous.

Don’t forget that clients can make mistakes, too. Even if you BCC your client to avoid the above problems, it could be your client who uses Reply All.

Second, part of your job is to counsel your client, which is difficult to do without providing at least a sentence or two of summary or context or explanation. If all you do is CC your client on every email (or forward every email with little more than “FYI”), you are missing a chance to do your job.

The better practice is usually to wait until the end of the discussion (or at least a decision point), so you can bring your client up to speed with a brief summary, some context, your analysis, the options you need to discuss, etc. Go ahead and include all the back-and-forth if you like, but don’t just hand it off. It is safe to assume given the fact of your representation that your client wants you to use your legal acumen to help them understand what is going on.

So don’t CC your client. There are certainly some exceptions to this ‘rule,’ or times when it doesn’t really matter. But at a minimum you should think twice before adding your client to the CC or BCC field of an email you are about to send.

IRS Says It Did Not Back Up Email, But Relied on Employees To Archive Email On Personal Computers.

17 Tuesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Depositions, E-Discovery, Emails, Government, Internal Revenue Service, Legal Technology, Litigation Hold, Microsoft Office, Outlook, PC Computers, Preservation, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on IRS Says It Did Not Back Up Email, But Relied on Employees To Archive Email On Personal Computers.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

GOP: IRS Lost More Emails In Tea Party Affair, by Rachel Bade with contributions by Josh Gerstein and Brian Faler, POLITICOPro

http://tinyurl.com/k9ycgz6

This did not catch my eye because of the politics or that the involved party is the IRS. I was simply in awe that anyone in this day and age of litigation holds and e-discovery could – with a straight face – claim to have irretrievably lost so much computer data.  -CCE

Republicans on Tuesday charged that the IRS has lost emails of a half dozen of its employees involved in the tea party targeting controversy, including a top aide to the now-fired acting IRS commissioner.

In addition to losing two years’ worth of emails sent and received by Lois Lerner, the central figure in the scandal, the IRS ‘cannot produce records from six other IRS employees involved in the targeting of conservative groups,’ Ways and Means Republicans said in a release.

* * *

Ways and Means does not say how the emails went missing or what time specific time periods are involved, though they say it includes the period at issue. In the case of Lerner, for example, her archived emails between 2009 and 2011 were washed away in a 2011 computer crash, the agency says.

* * *

The IRS says that at the time they did not keep records of or back up all emails. Rather, they relied on employees to archive them on their personal computers after they ran out of storage space in their Outlook inboxes. . . .

Email Virus Running Amuck In Some Appellate Courts.

17 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Emails, Legal Technology, Louisiana Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Email Virus Running Amuck In Some Appellate Courts.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

A virus going around, by Raymond Ward, Louisiana Civil Appeals Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kv5owgc

There must be a virus going around. Recently the Louisiana Supreme Court and the First, Third, and Fifth Circuits have published warnings about malicious e-mails purporting to come from those courts. . . .

Target Update: Affected Customers Now 110 Million and May Still Go Up.

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by in Consumer Law, Recent Links and Articles

≈ Comments Off on Target Update: Affected Customers Now 110 Million and May Still Go Up.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Target: Hacking Hit Up To 110 Million Customers, by Katrina Lamansky, WQAD.com

http://tinyurl.com/pssy2r5

People who shopped at Target following Thanksgiving have already heard that their personal information was hacked. But now it is clear that Target was actually hacked much earlier than originally reported.

This morning, the reported number of customers affected was around 40 million. Now the reported number is 100 million, and Target is not sure how high the number will go.

Target will try to contact all affected customers. Be cautious. Contacts from Target will not request any personal information. Target is also offering a program of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection. You will have three months to enroll in that program.

Target says that it does not think the thieves can access anyone’s bank account, but hacked customers are at risk for identity theft. -CCE

Federal Court’s Application of the Stored Communications Act to Previously Opened Web-Based Emails.

08 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Legal Technology, Preservation

≈ Comments Off on Federal Court’s Application of the Stored Communications Act to Previously Opened Web-Based Emails.

Tags

, , , , ,

Stored Communications Act Applies to Previously Opened Web-based Emails, by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/mcl4cgt

Cheng v. Romo, No. 11-10007-DJC, 2013 WL 6814691 (D. Mass. Dec. 20, 2013)

In this case, the court addressed the question of whether previously opened web-based emails were in ‘electronic storage’ as defined by the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and determined that they were.

When You Want Fast and Cheap, Adobe Acrobat Does the Trick in a Pinch.

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Adobe Acrobat, Databases, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Legal Technology, Pre-Trial, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on When You Want Fast and Cheap, Adobe Acrobat Does the Trick in a Pinch.

Tags

, , , , ,

Acrobat to the Rescue: Searching Unsearchable Productions, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/paxgrfn

Spring 2013 Case Law Update on E-Discovery Self-Collection – When It’s Okay, When It’s Not, and the Potential Risks

27 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by in Court Rules, Court Rules, Databases, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Sanctions

≈ Comments Off on Spring 2013 Case Law Update on E-Discovery Self-Collection – When It’s Okay, When It’s Not, and the Potential Risks

Tags

, , , , ,

Self-Collection: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, by Tony Merlino, DTI
http://dtiglobal.com/resources/articles/spring-2013-case-law-update/

South Carolina Court Says to Attorney: No Email = No License.

24 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by in Attorney Discipline, Court Rules, Emails, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Trust Accounts

≈ Comments Off on South Carolina Court Says to Attorney: No Email = No License.

Tags

, , , ,

No E-Mail, No License, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof, Legal Profession Blog
http://bit.ly/16v90hL

The South Carolina Supreme Court suspended an attorney for repeatedly refusing to follow its explicit rules to maintain and monitor a working email account. This transgression, plus other failures by the Respondent to follow the Court’s orders and rules, led to the attorney’s suspension. The lawyer’s license to practice law was until further order of the Court.