• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Emails

Email Spam or Have I Got A Deal For You!

25 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Emails, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Technology

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

Tags

Emails, Jim Calloway, Jim Calloway's Law Practice Tips Blog, Spam

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

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Litgation Hold – Too Little Too Late.

25 Thursday Feb 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Doug Law, E-Discovery, eDiscovery daily Blog, Emails, Litigation Hold, Police, Sanctions, Text Messages

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 →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Were Deleted Emails A Failure to Preserve?

15 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Preservation

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

Tags

E-Discovery, Emails, K&L Gates, Motion to Exclude, Preservation, Spoilation

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 →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

28 Friday Nov 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Client Confidentality, Email Address, Emails, Lawyerist Blog, Legal Ethics, Rules of Professional Responsibility, Sam Glover

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.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

17 Tuesday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Computer Backups, Computer Crash, Disaster Preparedness, Emails, Evidence, IRS, Lois Lerner, Outlook, POLITICOPro, Rachel Bade, Ways and Means

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. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email Virus Running Amuck In Some Appellate Courts.

17 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

1st Circuit Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Emails, Louisiana Civil Appeals Blog, Louisiana Supreme Court, Malware, Raymond Ward, Virus

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. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Consumer Law, Recent Links and Articles

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

Tags

Credit Cards, Data Breach, Debit Cards, Emails, Hacking, Identity Theft, Katrina Lamansky, Target, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel, WQAD.com

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

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

08 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Cheng v. Romo, E-Discovery, Electronic Storage, Emails, K&L Gates, Stored Communications Act

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.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Adobe Acrobat, Ball In Your Court Blog, Craig Ball, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails

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

http://tinyurl.com/paxgrfn

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

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 Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Case Law, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Sanctions, Spoliation

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

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

24 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Attorney Discipline, Court Rules, Emails, Legal Ethics, South Carolina

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.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 454 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: