practicing law with an ipad nycla cle course timed … book 2.pdfthe views expressed herein have not...

Practicing Law with an iPad

NYCLA CLE Course – June 20, 2012

Gerber Amalgamated LLC

P.O. Box 8295

Red Bank, NJ 07701

[email protected]

www.CarolGerber.com

© 2012 Gerber Amalgamated LLC

Timed Agenda

Section I: Introduction – 5 minutes

Section II: Setting Expectations – 15 minutes

What attorneys should and should not expect to be able to

do on an iPad

Section III: Security – 30 minutes

What attorneys should know in terms of security for the

device itself, materials stored on the device, materials

being transferred to and from the device, and compliance

with firm policies about communications with clients

Section IV: Available Apps for Attorneys – 35 minutes

Additional applications that have been designed

specifically for attorneys, or are helpful or necessary for

attorneys to work on the device

Section V: Additional Resources – 10 minutes

A review of the blogs, publications and other CLE classes

attorneys can take to keep themselves current in this area

Questions – 15 minutes



Section I: Introduction


P.O. Box 8295

Red Bank, NJ 07701

[email protected]

www.CarolGerber.com


Faculty Biography

Carol J. Gerber, J.D., M.A.

Carol Gerber has used her academic background, her experience as

a practicing attorney, and her avid interest in practical

applications of technology to help attorneys incorporate

technology into their practices for more than 10 years. As the

former Director of Learning & Professional Development at Moses

& Singer LLP, Carol consulted within the firm on new technology

initiatives and designed and implemented numerous training

programs to help the firm's attorneys take advantage of

developments in legal technology.

Carol is an attorney, admitted in New York State, and a graduate

of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Carol also holds a

Master of Arts Degree in Education from Teachers College,

Columbia University, where her work included several courses in

designing and delivering adult education programs.

In addition to giving many classes and CLE presentations at

Moses & Singer LLP, Carol has been a regular attendee and a

speaker at industry events hosted by the International Legal

Technology Association, the Professional Legal Trainers Group,

and the New York Word Legal Users Group.

* * *

Gerber Amalgamated LLC was formed in 2011 to provide educational

services at the intersection of technology and the practice of

law. Among other things, the company seeks to develop legal

technology training that satisfies state-mandated continuing

legal education requirements wherever possible.



Section II: Setting Expectations


www.CarolGerber.com

Attorney Job

Function

Legal Pad

and Pen

iPad Blackberry or

Other Smartphone

Laptop/Notebook

Computer

Taking Notes Yes Note taking

software is

available.

Not recommended

(very short notes

can be typed on

the phone’s

keyboard).

Word processing

software can be

inflexible for

taking notes.

Reading and

Annotating

Documents

Yes Limited annotation

features available

in iBook.

Additional PDF

annotation

capabilities with

software such as

GoodReader.

Reading is

difficult, but

possible.

Annotations would

be impracticable.

Yes

Drafting or

Editing Documents

Yes Possible with

additional

software, such as

Documents to Go.

Extremely

difficult but

possible with

additional

software.

Yes

Legal Research

No Yes, with legal

research apps and

an Internet

connection.

Offline resources

are also available.

Some legal

research and

docket research

may be possible,

but will be very

difficult.

Yes





www.CarolGerber.com

Attorney Job

Function

Legal Pad

and Pen

iPad Blackberry or

Other Smartphone

Laptop/Notebook

Computer

E-mail

(Assuming device

is connected to

the Internet)

No E-mail will appear

periodically, or

you can manually

update your inbox.

Yes. Push e-mail

appears on device

immediately.

Yes

Phone Calls No Yes, with

additional apps and

accessories. Call

quality can be hit

or miss.

Yes Yes, with

additional

software and

accessories. Call

quality can be

hit or miss.

Time Tracking,

Time Capture and

Time Entry

Time

tracking, but

not time

capture or

time entry.

Time can be tracked

(but not captured)

and time entries

created with

additional apps.

Ability to submit

time entry will

depend on firm’s

time entry system.

Time tracking and

time capture

programs are

available.

Ability to submit

time entries will

depend on firm's

systems.

Yes

Trial Preparation

– Document Review

Not

recommended.

Some document

review may be

possible with

limited

functionality.

No Yes





www.CarolGerber.com

Attorney Job

Function

Legal Pad

and Pen

iPad Blackberry or

Other Smartphone

Laptop/Notebook

Computer

Jury Selection Yes Yes. Specially-

designed apps may

make the iPad the

best tool for this

job.

No Yes

Trial

Presentation

Not

recommended

May be effective in

smaller cases;

adapter, court

permission and/or

coordination, and

practice required.

No Yes; court

permission and/or

coordination

required.

The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American

Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

COMMISSION ON ETHICS 20/20

REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES

RESOLUTION RESOLVED: That the American Bar Association amends the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct dated August 2012, to provide guidance regarding lawyers’ use of technology and confidentiality as follows (insertions

1 2

underlined, deletions struck through): 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

(a) the black letter and Comments to Model Rule 1.0 (Terminology); (b) the Comments to Model Rule 1.1 (Competence); (c) the Comments to Model Rule 1.4 (Communication); (d) the black letter and Comments to Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information); and (e) the black letter and Comments to Model Rule 4.4 (Respect for Rights of Third Parties). Rule 1.0 Terminology

(a) ‘‘Belief’’ or ‘‘believes’’ denotes that the person involved actually supposed the fact in question to be true. A person’s belief may be inferred from circumstances.

(b) ‘‘Confirmed in writing,’’ when used in reference to the informed consent of a person, denotes informed consent that is given in writing by the person or a writing that a lawyer promptly transmits to the person confirming an oral informed consent. See paragraph (e) for the definition of ‘‘informed consent.’’ If it is not feasible to obtain or transmit the writing at the time the person gives informed consent, then the lawyer must obtain or transmit it within a reasonable time thereafter.

(c) ‘‘Firm’’ or ‘‘law firm’’ denotes a lawyer or lawyers in a law partnership, professional corporation, sole proprietorship or other association authorized to practice law; or lawyers employed in a legal services organization or the legal department of a corporation or other organization.

(d) ‘‘Fraud’’ or ‘‘fraudulent’’ denotes conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive.

(e) ‘‘Informed consent’’ denotes the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.

(f) ‘‘Knowingly,’’ ‘‘known,’’ or ‘‘knows’’ denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.

1



(g) ‘‘Partner’’ denotes a member of a partnership, a shareholder in a law firm organized as a professional corporation, or a member of an association authorized to practice law.

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

(h) ‘‘Reasonable’’ or ‘‘reasonably’’ when used in relation to conduct by a lawyer denotes the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer.

(i) ‘‘Reasonable belief’’ or ‘‘reasonably believes’’ when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that the lawyer believes the matter in question and that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable.

(j) ‘‘Reasonably should know’’ when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question.

(k) ‘‘Screened’’ denotes the isolation of a lawyer from any participation in a matter through the timely imposition of procedures within a firm that are reasonably adequate under the circumstances to protect information that the isolated lawyer is obligated to protect under these Rules or other law.

(l) ‘‘Substantial’’ when used in reference to degree or extent denotes a material matter of clear and weighty importance.

(m) ‘‘Tribunal’’ denotes a court, an arbitrator in a binding arbitration proceeding or a legislative body, administrative agency or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity. A legislative body, administrative agency or other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties, will render a binding legal judgment directly affecting a party’s interests in a particular matter.

(n) ‘‘Writing’’ or ‘‘written’’ denotes a tangible or electronic record of a communication or representation, including handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photography, audio or videorecording, and e-mail electronic 57 communications. A ‘‘signed’’ writing includes an electronic sound, symbol or process attached to or logically associated with a writing and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the writing.

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Comment ... Screened ...

[9] The purpose of screening is to assure the affected parties that confidential information known by the personally disqualified lawyer remains protected. The personally disqualified lawyer should acknowledge the obligation not to communicate with any of the other lawyers in the firm with respect to the matter. Similarly, other lawyers in the firm who are working on the matter should be informed that the screening is in place and that they may not communicate with the personally disqualified lawyer with respect to the matter. Additional screening measures that are appropriate for the particular matter will depend on the circumstances. To implement, reinforce and remind all affected lawyers of the presence of the screening, it may be appropriate for the firm to undertake such procedures as a written undertaking by the screened lawyer to avoid any communication with other firm personnel and any contact with any firm files or other materials information, including information in electronic form, relating to the matter, written notice and instructions to all other firm personnel forbidding any communication with the screened lawyer relating to the matter, denial of access by the screened lawyer to firm files or

76 77 78

2



79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

other materials information, including information in electronic form, relating to the matter, and periodic reminders of the screen to the screened lawyer and all other firm personnel.

... Rule 1.1 Competence A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Comment ... Maintaining Competence

[6] To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant 93

94 95 96 97 98 99

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject. Rule 1.4 Communication

(a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to

which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;

(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Comment ... Communicating with Client

... [4] A lawyer's regular communication with clients will minimize the occasions on which

a client will need to request information concerning the representation. When a client makes a reasonable request for information, however, paragraph (a)(4) requires prompt compliance with the request, or if a prompt response is not feasible, that the lawyer, or a member of the lawyer's staff, acknowledge receipt of the request and advise the client when a response may be expected. Client telephone calls should be promptly returned or acknowledged. A lawyer should promptly 122 respond to or acknowledge client communications. 123

124 125

...

3



Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client

unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm; (2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably

certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;

(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;

(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules; (5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy

between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client; or

(6) to comply with other law or a court order. (c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or 149

unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the 150 representation of a client. 151

152 153 154 155 156

Comment ... Acting Competently to Preserve Confidentiality

[16] Paragraph (c) requires a A lawyer must to act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against

157 unauthorized access by third parties and against

inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure by the lawyer or other persons 158

or entities who are participating in the representation of the client or who are subject to the lawyer’s supervision. See Rules 1.1, 5.1 and 5.3.

159 160

The unauthorized access to, or the inadvertent or unauthorized 161 disclosure of, confidential information does not constitute a violation of paragraph (c) if the 162

163 lawyer has made reasonable efforts to prevent the access or disclosure. Factors to be considered 164 in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer’s efforts include, but are not limited to, the 165 sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not 166 employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the

safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to 167 168 represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to 169 use). A client may require the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by this

Rule or may give informed consent to forgo security measures that would otherwise be required by this Rule. Whether a lawyer may be required to take additional steps to safeguard a client’s

170 171

4



172 information in order to comply with other law, such as state and federal laws that govern data 173 privacy or that impose notification requirements upon the loss of, or unauthorized access to, 174 electronic information, is beyond the scope of these Rules. For a lawyer’s duties when sharing 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185

information with nonlawyers outside the lawyer’s own firm, see Rule 5.3, Comments [3]-[4]. [17] When transmitting a communication that includes information relating to the

representation of a client, the lawyer must take reasonable precautions to prevent the information from coming into the hands of unintended recipients. This duty, however, does not require that the lawyer use special security measures if the method of communication affords a reasonable expectation of privacy. Special circumstances, however, may warrant special precautions. Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer’s expectation of confidentiality include the sensitivity of the information and the extent to which the privacy of the communication is protected by law or by a confidentiality agreement. A client may require the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by this Rule or may give informed consent to the use of a means of communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this Rule. Whether a lawyer may be required to take additional steps in order to comply with other law, such as state and federal laws that govern data privacy, is beyond the scope of these

186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195

Rules. ... Rule 4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

(b) A lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored information relating to the representation of the lawyer’s client and knows or reasonably should know that the document

196 197

or electronically stored information was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender.

198 199 200 201 202

Comment ...

203 [2] Paragraph (b) recognizes that lawyers sometimes receive a documents or electronically stored information that were was mistakenly sent or produced by opposing parties or their lawyers.

204 A document or electronically stored information is inadvertently sent when it is 205

206 accidentally transmitted, such as when an email or letter is misaddressed or a document or 207 electronically stored information is accidentally included with information that was intentionally

transmitted. If a lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such a document or electronically 208 stored information was sent inadvertently, then this Rule requires the lawyer to promptly notify the sender in order to permit that person to take protective measures. Whether the lawyer is required to take additional steps, such as returning the

209 210

document or electronically stored 211 information original document, is a matter of law beyond the scope of these Rules, as is the question of whether the privileged status of a document

212 or electronically stored information has

been waived. Similarly, this Rule does not address the legal duties of a lawyer who receives a document

213 214

or electronically stored information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know may have been wrongfully

215 inappropriately obtained by the sending person. For purposes of this

Rule, ‘‘document 216

or electronically stored information’’ includes, in addition to paper documents, 217

5



6

email and other forms of electronically stored information, including embedded data (commonly 218 referred to as “metadata”), that is email or other electronic modes of transmission subject to being read or put into readable form.

219 Metadata in electronic documents creates an obligation 220

under this Rule only if the receiving lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the metadata 221 was inadvertently sent to the receiving lawyer. 222

[3] Some lawyers may choose to return a document or electronically stored information unread, for example, when the lawyer learns before receiving

223 it the document that it was

inadvertently sent t224

o the wrong address. Where a lawyer is not required by applicable law to do so, the decision to voluntarily return such a document

225 or electronically stored information is a

matter of professional judgment ordinarily reserved to the lawyer. See Rules 1.2 and 1.4. 226 227

The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association.

REPORT

Introduction

Advances in technology have enabled lawyers in all practice settings to provide more efficient and effective legal services. Some forms of technology, however, present certain risks, particularly with regard to clients’ confidential information. One of the objectives of the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has been to develop guidance for lawyers regarding their ethical obligations to protect this information when using technology, and to update the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to reflect the realities of a digital age.

The Commission’s recommendations in this area take two forms. First, the Commission has asked the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility to work with relevant entities within the Association to create a centralized user-friendly website with continuously updated and detailed information about confidentiality-related ethics issues arising from lawyers’ use of technology, including information about the latest data security standards. The Commission concluded that this web-based resource is critical given that rule-based guidance and ethics opinions are insufficiently nimble to address the constantly changing nature of technology and the regularly evolving security risks associated with that technology. The ABA’s Legal Technology Resource Center and Law Practice Management Section’s eLawyering Task Force have developed excellent technology-related resources, but those resources exist in different places on the ABA website. The Commission found that lawyers are seeking a website that serves as a centralized and continuously updated resource on these issues.

The Commission believes that the information contained on this website should be

presented in such a way that lawyers who may not have extensive knowledge about technology and associated ethics issues can easily understand the information. For example, this resource should identify the key issues that lawyers should consider when using technology in their practices, such as the administrative, technical, and physical safeguards that should be employed. The resource should also highlight additional cutting-edge and more sophisticated topics. The website also should include regularly updated information about security standards, including the identification of standards-setting organizations, so that lawyers can more easily determine whether the technology that they employ is compliant with those standards.

Second, the Commission is proposing to amend several Model Rules of Professional

Conduct and their Comments. Unlike the proposed website, which can be regularly updated in light of new technology and changing security concerns, the Rule and Comment-based proposals necessarily offer more general guidance and do not offer advice regarding the use of any particular type of technology.

The Commission identified six areas that would benefit from this guidance. First, the Commission concluded that technology has raised new issues for law firms that employ screens pursuant to Model Rules 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, and 1.18. The Commission determined that it is

1

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/departments_offices/legal_technology_resources.html

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/departments_offices/legal_technology_resources.html

http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=EP024500

important to make clear that a screen must necessarily include protections against the sharing of both tangible as well as electronic information. Thus, the Commission is proposing an amendment to address this point in Comment [9] of Model Rule 1.0 (Terminology), which concerns the definition of a screen under Model Rule 1.0(k).

Second, the Commission determined that the definition of a “writing” in Model Rule

1.0(n) does not reflect the full range of ways in which lawyers use technology to memorialize an understanding. Thus, the Commission is recommending that the word “e-mail” be replaced by “electronic communications.”

Third, the Commission concluded that competent lawyers must have some awareness of

basic features of technology. To make this point, the Commission is recommending an amendment to Comment [6] of Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) that would emphasize that, in order to stay abreast of changes in the law and its practice, lawyers need to have a basic understanding of the benefits and risks of relevant technology.

Fourth, the Commission is proposing a change to the last sentence of Comment [4] to

Model Rule 1.4, which currently says that, “[c]lient telephone calls should be promptly returned or acknowledged.” The Commission proposes to replace that admonition with the following language: “A lawyer should promptly respond to or acknowledge client communications.” Although not related to a lawyer’s confidentiality obligations, the Commission nevertheless concluded that this language more accurately describes a lawyer’s obligations in light of the increasing number of ways in which clients use technology to communicate with lawyers, such as by email.

Fifth, the Commission is proposing to add a new paragraph to Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information). Proposed new Model Rule 1.6(c) would make clear that a lawyer has an ethical duty to take reasonable measures to protect a client’s confidential information from inadvertent or unauthorized disclosures as well as from unauthorized access. This duty is already described in several existing Comments, but the Commission concluded that, in light of the pervasive use of technology to store and transmit confidential client information, this existing obligation should be stated explicitly in the black letter of Model Rule 1.6. The Commission also concluded that the Comments should be amended to offer lawyers more guidance about how to comply with this obligation.

Finally, the Commission is proposing new language to clarify the scope of Model Rule

4.4(b), which concerns a lawyer’s obligations upon receiving inadvertently sent confidential information. The current provision describes the receipt of “documents” containing such information, but confidential information can also take the form of electronically stored information. Thus, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 4.4(b) to make clear that the Rule governs both paper documents as well as electronically stored information. Moreover, the Commission is proposing to define the phrase “inadvertently sent” in Comment [2] to give lawyers more guidance as to when notification requirement of Model Rule 4.4(b) is triggered.

The Commission concluded that these amendments are necessary to make lawyers more

aware of their confidentiality-related obligations when taking advantage of technology’s many

2

benefits. The proposals also update the language of the Model Rules to ensure that they reflect the realities of 21st century law practice. These proposals are set out in the Resolutions that accompany this Report and are described in more detail below.

I. Model Rule 1.0(k) (Terminology; Screening)

Model Rule 1.0 is the Terminology Section of the Model Rules. Model Rule 1.0(k) describes the procedures for an effective screen to avoid the imputation of a conflict of interest under Model Rules 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, and 1.18. Comment [9] elaborates on this definition and notes that one important feature of a screen is to limit the screened lawyer’s access to any information that relates to the matter giving rise to the conflict.

Advances in technology have made client information more accessible to the whole firm,

so the process of limiting access to this information should require more than placing relevant physical documents in an inaccessible location; it should require appropriate treatment of electronic information as well. Although this requirement is arguably encompassed within the existing version of Rule 1.0(k) and Comment [9], the Commission concluded and heard that greater clarity and specificity is needed. To that end, the Commission is proposing that Comment [9] explicitly note that, when a screen is put in place, it should apply to information that is in electronic, as well as tangible, form.

II. Model Rule 1.0(n) (Terminology; Writing)

The word “writing” is another defined term that should be updated in light of changes in

technology. Currently, Model Rule 1.0(n) defines “writing” or “written” as “a tangible or electronic record of a communication or representation, including handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photography, audio or videorecording and e-mail.” The Commission concluded that this definition is not sufficiently expansive given the wide range of methods that lawyers now use (or are likely to use in the near future) when memorializing an agreement, such as written consents to conflicts of interest. The Commission, therefore, proposes to replace the word “e-mail” with “electronic communications.”

III. Model Rule 1.1 (Competence)

Model Rule 1.1 requires a lawyer to provide competent representation, and Comment [6]

specifies that, to remain competent, lawyers need to “keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice.” The Commission concluded that, in order to keep abreast of changes in law practice in a digital age, lawyers necessarily need to understand basic features of relevant technology and that this aspect of competence should be expressed in the Comment. For example, a lawyer would have difficulty providing competent legal services in today’s environment without knowing how to use email or create an electronic document.

Comment [6] already encompasses an obligation to remain aware of changes in

technology that affect law practice, but the Commission concluded that making this explicit, by addition of the phrase “including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology,” would offer greater clarity in this area and emphasize the importance of technology to modern

3

law practice. The proposed amendment, which appears in a Comment, does not impose any new obligations on lawyers. Rather, the amendment is intended to serve as a reminder to lawyers that they should remain aware of technology, including the benefits and risks associated with it, as part of a lawyer’s general ethical duty to remain competent.

IV. Model Rule 1.4 (Communication)

Model Rule 1.4 describes a lawyer’s duty to communicate with clients, and the last

sentence of Comment [4] to Model Rule 1.4 currently instructs lawyers that “[c]lient telephone calls should be promptly returned or acknowledged.” Clients, however, now communicate with lawyers in an increasing number of ways, including by email and other forms of electronic communication, and a lawyer’s obligation to respond should exist regardless of the medium that is used. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to replace the last sentence of Comment [4] with the following language: “A lawyer should promptly respond to or acknowledge client communications.” The Commission concluded that this language more accurately describes a lawyer’s obligations in light of changes in technology and evolving methods of communication.

V. Model Rule 1.6 (Duty of Confidentiality)

Currently, Model Rule 1.6(a) states that a lawyer has a duty not to reveal a client’s

confidential information, except for the circumstances described in Model Rule 1.6(b). The Rule, however, does not indicate what ethical obligations lawyers have to prevent such a revelation. Although this obligation is described in Comments [16] and [17], the Commission concluded that technology has made this duty sufficiently important that it should be elevated to black letter status in the form of the proposed Model Rule 1.6(c).

The idea of explaining a lawyer’s duty to safeguard information within the black letter of the Rule is not new. The proposed Model Rule 1.6(c) builds on a similar provision in New York, which itself has its roots in DR 4-101(D) of the old Model Code of Professional Responsibility. DR 4-101(D) had provided as follows:

(D) A lawyer shall exercise reasonable care to prevent his employees, associates, and others whose services are utilized by him from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of a client, except that a lawyer may reveal the information allowed by DR 4-101(C) through an employee.

The Commission concluded that a similar provision should appear in Model Rule 1.6 given the various confidentiality concerns associated with electronically stored information. The proposal identifies three types of problems that can lead to the unintended disclosure of confidential information. First, information can be inadvertently disclosed, such as when an email is sent to the wrong person. Second, information can be accessed without authority, such as when a third party “hacks” into a law firm’s network or a lawyer’s email account. Third, information can be disclosed when employees or other personnel release it without authority, such as when an employee posts confidential information on the Internet. Rule 1.6(c) is intended to make clear that lawyers have an ethical obligation to make reasonable efforts to prevent these

4

types of disclosures, such as by using reasonably available administrative, technical, and physical safeguards.

To be clear, paragraph (c) does not mean that a lawyer engages in professional

misconduct any time a client’s confidences are subject to unauthorized access or disclosed inadvertently or without authority. A sentence in Comment [16] makes this point explicitly. The reality is that disclosures can occur even if lawyers take all reasonable precautions. The Commission, however, believes that it is important to state in the black letter of Model Rule 1.6 that lawyers have a duty to take reasonable precautions, even if those precautions will not guarantee the protection of confidential information under all circumstances.

The Commission examined the possibility of offering more detailed guidance about the measures that lawyers should employ. The Commission concluded, however, that technology is changing too rapidly to offer such guidance and that the particular measures lawyers should use will necessarily change as technology evolves and as new risks emerge and new security procedures become available. Nevertheless, the Commission is proposing new language to Comment [16] to identify several factors that lawyers should consider when determining whether their efforts are reasonable, including the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use). Moreover, as explained above, the Commission has recommended that the ABA create a centralized website that contains continuously updated and detailed information about data security.

In addition to setting out the factors that lawyers need to consider when securing their

clients’ confidences, the proposed Comment language recognizes that some clients might require the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by the Rule or may give informed consent to the use of security measures that would otherwise be prohibited by the Rule. A nearly identical observation appears in Comment [17] in the context of security measures that lawyers might have to employ when transmitting confidential information. The Commission concluded that a similar thought should be expressed in the context of Comment [16], which pertains to the storage of such information.

Finally, the Commission’s research revealed that there has been a dramatic growth in federal, state, and international laws and regulations relating to data privacy. The Commission found that this body of law increasingly applies to lawyers and law firms and that lawyers need to be aware of these additional obligations. Thus, the Commission is proposing to add a sentence to the end of Comment [16] and Comment [17] that would remind lawyers that other laws and regulations impose confidentiality-related obligations beyond those that are identified in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Other Comments in the Model Rules instruct lawyers to consult law outside of the ethics rules, and the Commission concluded that a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality is another area where other legal obligations have become sufficiently important and common that lawyer should be expressly reminded to consider those obligations, both when storing confidential information (Comment [16]) and when transmitting it (Comment [17]).

5

VI. Model Rule 4.4 (Respect for Rights of Third Persons) Technology has increased the risk that confidential information will be inadvertently

disclosed, and Model Rule 4.4(b) addresses one particular ethics issue associated with this risk. Namely, it provides that, if lawyers receive documents that they know or reasonably should know were inadvertently sent to them, they must notify the sender.

The Commission concluded that the word “document” is inadequate to express the

various kinds of information that can be inadvertently sent in a digital age. For example, confidential information can now be disclosed in emails, flash drives, and data embedded in electronic documents (i.e., metadata). To make clear that the Rule applies to those situations, the Commission is proposing that the word “document” be replaced with a phrase that is commonly used in the context of discovery – “document or electronically stored information.”

In addition to clarifying that Rule 4.4(b) extends to various forms of electronic

information, the last sentence of Comment [2] addresses the issue of metadata. The Comment states that the receipt of metadata (i.e., data embedded in electronic information, such as the date an electronic document was created) triggers the notification duties of the Rule, but only when the receiving lawyer knows or has reason to believe that the metadata was inadvertently sent.

The new language about metadata does not resolve a more controversial question:

whether a lawyer should be permitted to look at metadata in the absence of consent or court authority to do so. Several ethics opinions, including ABA Formal Opinion 06-442, have concluded that Rule 4.4 does not prohibit a lawyer from reviewing metadata under those circumstances,1 but other ethics opinions have reached the opposite conclusion and have said that lawyers should typically not be permitted to look at an opposing party’s metadata in the absence of consent or a court order.2 The Commission’s proposal does not resolve this issue, but merely recognizes that lawyers will, in fact, be permitted to look at metadata, at least under certain circumstances (e.g., with the opponent’s or a court’s permission). The Commission’s proposal makes clear that, under those circumstances, if a lawyer uncovers metadata that the lawyer knows the sending lawyer did not intend to include, Model Rule 4.4(b)’s notification requirement is triggered.

The Commission is also proposing to define the phrase “inadvertently sent.” The phrase

is ambiguous and potentially misleading, because, for example, it could be read to exclude information that is intentionally sent, but to the wrong person. To ensure that the purpose of the Model Rule is clear, the Commission proposes to add the following sentence: “A document or electronically stored information is inadvertently sent when it is accidentally transmitted, such as

1 ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 06-442 (2006); Md. St. Bar Ass’n. Comm. on Ethics, Docket No. 2007-09 (2007); Vt. State Bar Ass’n Ethics Comm., Ethics Op. 01 (2009). 2 See, e.g., Ala. St. Bar Office of Gen. Counsel, Formal Op. 02 (2007); State Bar of Ariz. Ethics Comm., Ethics Op. 03 (2007); Fla. State Bar Prof’l Ethics Comm., Formal Op. 02 (2006); Me. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar Prof’l Ethics Comm’n, Ethics Op. 196 (2007); N.H. Bar Ass’n. Ethics Comm., Advisory Op. 4 (2008-2009); N.Y. State Bar Ass’n Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Ethics Op. 749 at *3 (2001); NYCLA Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Ethics Op. 738 (2008).

6

http://www.mebaroverseers.org/Ethics%20Opinions/Opinion%20196.htm

7

when an email or letter is misaddressed or a document or electronically stored information is accidentally included with information that was intentionally transmitted.”

VII. Conclusion

Technology can increase the quality of legal services, reduce the cost of legal services to existing clients, and enable lawyers to represent clients who might not otherwise have been able to afford those services. Lawyers, however, need to understand that technology can pose certain risks to clients’ confidential information and that reasonable safeguards are ethically required. The Commission’s proposals are designed to help lawyers understand these risks so that they can take appropriate and reasonable measures when taking advantage of technology’s many benefits. The proposals also update the language of the Model Rules so that it reflects the way that law is practiced in the 21st century. Accordingly, the Commission respectfully requests that the House of Delegates adopt the proposed amendments set forth in the accompanying Resolutions.



Section III: Security


P.O. Box 8295, Red Bank, NJ 07701

[email protected]

www.CarolGerber.com


Ethics Opinions Relevant to Cloud Computing and the Use of Other

Emerging Technology, as of June 11, 2012:

Alabama:

Opinion 2010-01, available at

http://www.alabar.org/ogc/PDF/2010-02.pdf

Arizona:


http://www.myazbar.org/Ethics/pdf/05-04.pdf

California:

Formal Opinion No. 2010‐179, available at http://ethics.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=wmq

ECiHp7h4%3D&tabid=837

Iowa:


http://iowabar.org/associations/4664/files/Ethics%20Opini

on%2011-01%20--%20Software%20as%20a%20Service%20-

%20Cloud%20Computing.pdf

Maine:

Opinion #194, available at

http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=mebar

_overseers_ethics_opinions&id=86894&v=article

Nevada:

Formal Opinion No. 33, available at

http://nvbar.org/sites/default/files/opinion_33.pdf

New Jersey:

Opinion 701, available at

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/notices/ethics/ACPE_Opin

ion701_ElectronicStorage_12022005.pdf

New York:


http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Ethics_Opini

ons&ContentID=55952&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm



http://ethics.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=wmqECiHp7h4%3D&tabid=837


http://iowabar.org/associations/4664/files/Ethics%20Opinion%2011-01%20--%20Software%20as%20a%20Service%20-%20Cloud%20Computing.pdf



http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=mebar_overseers_ethics_opinions&id=86894&v=article



http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/notices/ethics/ACPE_Opinion701_ElectronicStorage_12022005.pdf


http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Ethics_Opinions&ContentID=55952&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm







[email protected]

www.CarolGerber.com


North Carolina:

2011 Formal Ethics Opinion 6, available at

http://www.ncbar.gov/ethics/index.asp

Oregon:

Formal Opinion 2011-188, available at

http://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2011-188.pdf

Pennsylvania:


http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/newsletters/2012/pdfs/

2011-200-Cloud-Computing.pdf

See also:

American Bar Association Commission on Ethics 20/20 Proposed

Resolution to Amend the ABA Model Rules of Professional

Conduct, available at

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative

/ethics_2020/20120508_ethics_20_20_final_resolution_and_r

eport_technology_and_confidentiality_posting.authcheckdam

.pdf

Ries, David G., "Cyber Security for Attorneys: Understanding

the Ethical Obligations," Published March, 2012 in The

American Bar Association's "Law Practice Today" webzine,

and available at

http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_pr

actice_today_home/law_practice_today_archive/march12/cybe

r-security-for-attorneys-understanding-the-ethical-

obligations.html



http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/newsletters/2012/pdfs/2011-200-Cloud-Computing.pdf


http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/ethics_2020/20120508_ethics_20_20_final_resolution_and_report_technology_and_confidentiality_posting.authcheckdam.pdf




http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_practice_today_home/law_practice_today_archive/march12/cyber-security-for-attorneys-understanding-the-ethical-obligations.html









[email protected]

www.CarolGerber.com


Ethics Opinions Relevant to Cloud Computing and the Use of Other

Emerging Technology, as of June 11, 2012:

Alabama:



Arizona:



California:

Formal Opinion No. 2010‐179, available at http://ethics.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=wmq

ECiHp7h4%3D&tabid=837

Iowa:


http://iowabar.org/associations/4664/files/Ethics%20Opini

on%2011-01%20--%20Software%20as%20a%20Service%20-

%20Cloud%20Computing.pdf

Maine:


http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=mebar

_overseers_ethics_opinions&id=86894&v=article

Nevada:

Formal Opinion No. 33, available at


New Jersey:

Opinion 701, available at

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/notices/ethics/ACPE_Opin

ion701_ElectronicStorage_12022005.pdf

New York:


http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Ethics_Opini

ons&ContentID=55952&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm




















[email protected]

www.CarolGerber.com


North Carolina:

2011 Formal Ethics Opinion 6, available at


Oregon:



Pennsylvania:


http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/newsletters/2012/pdfs/

2011-200-Cloud-Computing.pdf

See also:

American Bar Association Commission on Ethics 20/20 Proposed

Resolution to Amend the ABA Model Rules of Professional

Conduct, available at

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative

/ethics_2020/20120508_ethics_20_20_final_resolution_and_r

eport_technology_and_confidentiality_posting.authcheckdam

.pdf

Ries, David G., "Cyber Security for Attorneys: Understanding

the Ethical Obligations," Published March, 2012 in The

American Bar Association's "Law Practice Today" webzine,

and available at

http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_pr

actice_today_home/law_practice_today_archive/march12/cybe

r-security-for-attorneys-understanding-the-ethical-

obligations.html














NYCLA Course – June 20, 2012

Available Apps for Attorneys as of June 13, 2012


www.CarolGerber.com

When I first started researching this topic, I found several

apps that allowed attorneys to work in spite of the iPad's

limitations, but very few that took advantage of any of the

iPad's inherent strengths. Almost all early articles

encouraging attorneys to work on iPads compared working on an

iPad to working with boxes of paper (a clear improvement in most

cases), and did not try to compare working on an iPad to working

on a traditional computer.1

Over time, however, apps have been developed that narrow the gap

between iPads and traditional computers. Some obstacles remain,

but with careful planning and the right apps, attorneys will be

able to work productively on iPads in many situations. Here are

some of the more frequently-mentioned iPad apps for attorneys.

All apps are available through the iTunes store (prices subject

to change).

Alternatives to the iPad's touch screen keyboard: Apple's iOS5

operating system has a built-in Shortcuts feature, accessible

through the Settings icon, that will let you store frequently-

used pieces of text that can be reused through the iPad’s auto-

correct system (similar to AutoText entries in Microsoft Word)

when using iPad's on-screen keyboard. For additional help

getting text into your iPad, consider these apps:

New iPad's Built-in Dictation Feature: The new iPad's on-

screen keyboard includes a microphone icon, which will

allow you to dictate instead of type wherever the on-

screen keyboard is used.

Dragon Dictation: Free app from Nuance that will let all

iPad users dictate e-mail, documents, status updates,

tweets and almost anything you would otherwise have to

type into your iPad.

BigHand: Free app to dictate materials that will be

transcribed within the BigHand dictation system used

by many law firms. Other enterprise-wide dictation

systems may have their own apps.

1 See, e.g., June 13, 2011 "How the iPad Can Increase Lawyers'

Productivity" by Michael H. Payne, published in The Legal Intelligencer and

available at

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202496710945&s

lreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202496710945&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1






www.CarolGerber.com

Please note that the built-in dictation capability of the

new iPad and the dictation apps all require an Internet

connection to send your dictation to corporate servers,

which translate your speech to text.2 When using any

dictation app, attorneys will need no reminders to keep

client confidentiality in mind when dictating away from the

office.

Note Taking: If you find a note taking app that works

comfortably for you, with or without a stylus, you may be able

to substitute your iPad for stacks of legal pads. As you choose

from the available apps, consider which works best with your

writing style, which provides the easiest way for you to

organize your notes on your iPad and on the other devices with

which you will synch your iPad, and whether you want an app that

will also make audio recordings or try to use handwriting

recognition to make your notes searchable.

Penultimate: $0.99 app has been said to feel most like

writing with a pen on paper, and is also said to work

well for left-handed writers. The company that makes

Penultimate was recently bought by Evernote (see

"Notes Organization" below), which may bring

handwriting recognition to Penultimate and increase

usability for Evernote users.

Note Taker HD: $4.99 app saves your handwritten notes as

PDF files on the iPad (and can also annotate PDF

files) and lets you e-mail them to the office. Its

"zoom box" feature is said to be an improvement over

other note taking apps.3

Noteshelf: $5.99 app (on sale for $0.99 as of June 13,

2012) provides, in my opinion, the most visual appeal

2 For a description of how Apple uses your dictated text and other

information from your iPad, see, March 19, 2012 "New iPad Feature

'Dictation' Sends/Stores Private Data to Apple Servers," by Stephen Chapman,

published by ZD Net and available at http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/new-ipad-

feature-dictation-sendsstores-private-data-to-apple-servers/71841

3 March 1, 2011 "App Review: Take Notes with Note Taker HD," by Rob

Dean, published on the WalkingOffice Blog and available at

http://www.walkingoffice.com/applications/app-review-take-notes-with-note-

taker-hd/

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/new-ipad-feature-dictation-sendsstores-private-data-to-apple-servers/71841

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/new-ipad-feature-dictation-sendsstores-private-data-to-apple-servers/71841

http://www.walkingoffice.com/applications/app-review-take-notes-with-note-taker-hd/

http://www.walkingoffice.com/applications/app-review-take-notes-with-note-taker-hd/





www.CarolGerber.com

and offers templates for several frequently-used note

formats.

Notes Organization: Moving up one step from note taking, these

apps allow you to combine notes and lists from many sources

(i.e., note taking apps, e-mail, web sites, voice notes,

photographs, and video), organize them by matter, search them

and access them from your iPad as well as from your traditional

computer.

Evernote: Free app organizes notes and makes them

accessible from any device with Internet access. A

premium version provides offline access.

OneNote: Free app from Microsoft organizes up to 500 notes

and makes them accessible through Microsoft's SkyDrive

cloud storage service. A premium version (available

as an in-app purchase) gives you an unlimited number

of notes.

Remote Access: Confidential client materials should only be

accessed through the secure channels that each firm will

establish.4 For moving personal materials, or non-confidential

case materials (i.e., PDFs of cases or publicly-filed pleadings)

to and from your iPad, consider:

iTunes: Free application that can be loaded onto a

computer to sync files between the computer and your

iPad, either through a cable or over a Wi-Fi

connection.

4 Each firm will have to make its own decision about using cloud storage

services, based on its own investigation of the service providers and the

level of confidentiality that its materials require. Options noted in the

legal technology press have included using a service that works like Dropbox

but that does not give the service access to encrypted files, such as Box

(f/k/a "Box.net"), or using Dropbox but employing a separate encryption

service for only those files that require encryption before synching to

Dropbox, such as Secret Sync. November 11, 2011, “Making Dropbox Secure for

Lawyers and Law Offices,” by Tom Stasiuk, published by Planet10Tech and

available at http://planet10tech.com/2011/11/making-dropbox-secure-for-

lawyers-and-law-offices/ Because of Dropbox’s pervasive use throughout the

industry and its integration with so many iPad applications, users may be

willing to apply additional encryption where necessary to be able to use

Dropbox.

http://planet10tech.com/2011/11/making-dropbox-secure-for-lawyers-and-law-offices/

http://planet10tech.com/2011/11/making-dropbox-secure-for-lawyers-and-law-offices/





www.CarolGerber.com

iCloud: An Internet-based service provided by Apple to

sync documents and other materials between all

connected devices, including your iPad and traditional

computers. Up to 5 GB of storage is free, and more

space can be bought.

Dropbox: Very popular, free app that lets you sync files

between your traditional computers and your iPad using

Dropbox's cloud service. Dropbox integrates with many

iPad apps, but issues with Dropbox's security and

privacy policies have been noted.5

Box: Free app that lets you sync files between traditional

computers and your iPad using Box's cloud service.

Box integrates with Good Technologies' mobile device

security system, and is, therefore, becoming more

popular among firms that use Good to provide access to

client materials.

E-mail: You can always e-mail something to yourself and

then open the e-mail from the iPad.

Wireless USB Drive: Tech-savvy attorneys can set up their

iPads as wireless USB drives on their home networks,

allowing for drag and drop file transfers.6

Reading and editing documents:7

iBook: Free e-book and PDF reader with useful commenting

and bookmark features.

GoodReader: $4.99 file management, reader and annotation

app that works with PDF files, Microsoft Office files,

5 June 22, 2011, "A Cloud Without Security Is All Fluff," by Evan

Koblentz, published by Law Technology News and available at

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202498077456&s

lreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

6 March 23, 2011, "Moving Files Onto the iPad," by Josh Barrett,

published on the Tablet Legal blog and available at

http://www.tabletlegal.com/moving-files-ipad/

7 Microsoft is rumored to be developing a version of Microsoft Office for

the iPad, but none is currently available.



http://www.tabletlegal.com/moving-files-ipad/





www.CarolGerber.com

and several other file types. Popular alternatives

include iAnnotate ($9.99) and ReaddleDocs ($4.99).

Documents to Go: $9.99 Word and Excel document reader and

editor that will display tracked changes on an iPad

(most apps will not). Documents to Go is also

considered to be the app that is the least destructive

to advanced Microsoft Word features in documents

edited on an iPad, such as cross-references, tables of

contents, comments, automated numbering and styles. A

premium version that will edit PowerPoint files is

also available (see section on "PowerPoint

Presentations" below).

Office2 HD: Recently released $7.99 app that will read,

create, and edit Office documents, and that will allow

users to view existing tracked changes and track new

changes. (Early reviews have reported crashes and

data losses in larger documents.8)

Quick Office Pro HD: $19.99 app that will read, create and

edit Office documents and that works with Good

Technologies' system to give secure access to firm

systems through mobile devices. The company that

makes this app was recently purchased by Google, which

may lead to compatibility with Google's "Google Drive"

cloud service and other Google apps.

Pages: Apple's $9.99 document editing app. Includes PDF

conversion from the iPad.

Numbers: Apple's $9.99 Excel spreadsheet app.

CloudOn: This free app lets you use cloud versions of

Microsoft Office on documents stored in your Dropbox,

Box and Google Drive accounts, including the track

changes feature in Microsoft Word. An Internet

connection is required to use the app, and security

and usability issues have been noted.

8 June 7, 2012, "Review: Office2 HD and Office2 – edit MS Office

documents with track changes support on the iPad or iPhone," by Jeff

Richardson, published in the iPhone J.D. blog and available at

http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2012/06/review-office2-hd.html

http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2012/06/review-office2-hd.html





www.CarolGerber.com

Legal Research:

Fastcase: Free app for free case law and statute research

(a premium version is also available).

Westlaw: Westlaw provides a free WestlawNext research app

(Westlaw account required). A free ProView e-reader

and annotation app is also available for West e-books

publications. The ProView e-reader app supports links

to Westlaw content and automatically transfers any

user annotations to West content to updated versions

of the content.

Lexis: Lexis provides a free Lexis Advance research app,

as well as a free Get Cases & Shepardize app. (Lexis

account required).

Litigator: $14.99 app providing off-line access to Federal

Rules of Appellate, Civil and Criminal Procedure,

Evidence, Supreme Court rules, and the U.S. Code Title

18 and 28. Several sets of state rules and several

Federal Courts' local rules are also available for

$4.99 each (deficiencies in the search functionality

have been noted9).

New York Consolidated Laws and Courts Act 2009: $4.99 app

for offline access to New York State statutes and

Court Acts (search for NY09 in the App Store to find

this app). The same developer,

http://iphoneappsbymike.blogspot.com/, also provides

apps for statutes from several other states.

PowerPoint Presentations: It is possible to run a PowerPoint

presentation from an iPad, but you will have fewer editing

capabilities than on your traditional computer. Please also

leave time in the process to test how your PowerPoint

presentation will display in whatever app you choose to use,

because changes often occur in the process of making your

PowerPoint file available on the iPad.

SlideShark: Free app that will let you display a

PowerPoint presentation (in slide number order or out

non-sequentially), and will let you reorganize slides

9 February 17, 2011, "Litigator iPad App Offers Access to Statutes, Court

Rules," by Ted Brooks, published in Law Technology News.

http://iphoneappsbymike.blogspot.com/





www.CarolGerber.com

or hide slides from the presentation. It also lets

you view (but not edit)your speaker's notes on the

iPad while you present and provides a built-in timer.

In my experience, this app presents the fewest

conversion issues. Presentations must move through

SlideShark's servers to be converted to the

presentation used by iPad.

Keynote: Apple's $9.99 PowerPoint app that will let you

create edit and display PowerPoint presentations. [buy

this and check the capabilities and the formatting]

Documents to Go Premium: $16.99 version of the app that

will let you edit the text of PowerPoint slides and

delete slides from or add slides to a presentation.

Web Conferencing: Web conferencing is possible on the iPad, but

please be sure to confirm that what you plan to do in your web

conference is possible with the app you have chosen. Not all

apps allow you to schedule a conference, share files, stream

content or show your screen from the iPad, and some limit the

number of participants.

WebEx, GoToMeeting, Adobe Connect, join.me, and Fuze all

have free iPad apps that all can use to connect to

meetings, and that subscribers to those services can

use to host and, in many cases, schedule meetings.

Some apps are also available in premium versions with

additional features. Microsoft has not released an

iPad app for LiveMeeting users.

Skype: Free app that subscribers to this service can use

for one-on-one video chatting with other Skype users.

Facetime: Built-in app that will let you video chat with

one other iPad, iPhone, or Mac user.

ooVoo Video Chat: Free app that puts up to 12 ooVoo users

on one screen and also supports one-on-one video chat

through a web browser. (A premium version of ooVoo's

service is also available that will remove the ads in

the free version and allow screen sharing.)

Case Management: Large firms are likely to have enterprise-wide

systems that will be accessible to iPad users over secure web

connections to view and manage information about cases,

including financial details, important upcoming dates, documents





www.CarolGerber.com

and relevant contact information. If you are in a smaller firm

or want to put your own case management system into place, you

may want to look into these iPad apps:

CaseManager for iPad: $14.99 app to manage case

information, contacts, calendar information, tasks,

financial information, and time and billing

information on the iPad, and makes that information

available offline.

LegalFile for iPad: $99.99 app to manage contact

information and case files (but not, apparently,

billing information). Provides offline access to case

files.

Calculating Court Dates:

DocketLaw: Free app calculates court dates based on the

court and the triggering event. The Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure are included with the app, and other

courts' rules can be downloaded by subscription.

Settlement Negotiations:

Picture It Settled Lite: Free iPhone app, which also works

on iPad, to track settlement negotiations and,

purportedly, predict likely settlements. (Predictive

ability depends in part on all users’ uploading

certain anonymized information about their own cases

and settlements.)

Accessing Docket Information:

FedCtRecords: $9.99 iPhone app, which also works on an

iPad, that allows PACER subscribers to access case

information and view (but not file) documents filed in

federal courts more easily than by accessing PACER

through the iPad’s web browser.

CourtLink: Free app allowing subscribers to Lexis’s

CourtLink service to view docket information and

manage docket alerts.

CourtAlert CaseToGo: Free app allowing users of

CourtAlert's case management system to view and

download docket information and related PDF files.





www.CarolGerber.com

CourtAlert Court Case Information: Free app providing

details of New York State and federal court cases to

subscribers to CourtAlert's service.

Working with Transcripts: Several court reporting companies

(including Wisconsin's Gramann Reporting, California's

LiveDeposition.com, and Tennessee's Omega Reporting) have

created their own iPad apps to deliver real-time transcripts to

iPads, but I have not found an app in the iTunes store that can

be downloaded to receive and display real-time transcript feeds

from all court reporters.

Mobile Transcript: Free app (paid account required to

upload transcripts, typically done by court reporting

services) that allows attorneys to search, read and

annotate transcripts while connected to the Internet,

and that tracks the time spent reading the transcript

so it can be e-mailed back to the attorney’s office.

TranscriptPad: $49.99 app that allows attorneys to upload,

search, read, and annotate transcripts, e-mail

sections of the transcript or annotation reports and

view related PDF exhibits.

Document Review:

iDocument REVIEW: This free app for reviewing and

redacting discovery documents only works with one e-

discovery vendor's load file format and only supports

16 tags per case. The user views the document image,

not the coded fields or the OCR data, so search hits

are not highlighted in documents. One reviewer says,

"Although it has limitations, if you're able to fit it

into your workflow, you'll have fun doing it."10

iConect's XERA review platform is also available on the

iPad, not as an app, but as a web site designed to

work with the iPad's standard browser (among others).

10 July 1, 2011 "E-Discovery Review Goes Mobile With New iPad App" by Ted

Brooks, published in Law Technology News and available at

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202499144591&E

Discovery_Review_Goes_Mobile_With_New_iPad_App

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202499144591&EDiscovery_Review_Goes_Mobile_With_New_iPad_App

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202499144591&EDiscovery_Review_Goes_Mobile_With_New_iPad_App





www.CarolGerber.com

Jury Selection:

Each of these apps can be an improvement over the tried and

true post-its-on-a-manila-folder method of tracking juror

information, but the reviews do not point to a clear

winner. Each app has different features, strengths and

weaknesses.

iJuror: $9.99 app tracks information for up to 60

potential jurors in the jury selection process. An

additional iJuror Stickies app ($4.99) gives you more

flexibility in keeping notes on your jurors.

Jury Duty: $29.99 app, offers more flexibility arranging

jury box layout and can track up to 200 potential

jurors.

iJury: $14.99 app tracks juror information and displays

dynamic charts of relevant data.

Financial Calculations in Matrimonial Matters:

New York Child Support Calculator: Free app from Family

Law Software offers child support calculations (with

certain limitations) for New York. Calculators for

several other states are also available. Users of

Family Law Software can also share information between

their iPad and their office or home computer.

iSupport – New York: $2.99 app to estimate spousal support

and child support costs. Michigan and Colorado

versions are also available.

Conducting the Trial:

Jury Tracker: $4.99 app focused on tracking jurors'

reactions during a trial.

iTestimony: $9.99 app from the makers of iJuror (see “Jury

Selection,” above) offers a place to track information

about witnesses and their testimony.

Trial Presentation:

A quote from one review of several apps in this category

said, "While none of these apps are [sic] likely to replace

trial presentation consultants or even software suites such





www.CarolGerber.com

as TrialDirector, they could be used effectively in the

right scenario, such as a settlement conference, mediation,

or even a small trial. Anything more should include a

thorough review of your malpractice insurance policy."11

(emphasis added). On the other hand, at least one lawyer

has found that the iPad is a viable option for low-tech,

high-impact trial presentation.12 All of the trial

presentation apps will let you organize and display

documents, photographs and other evidentiary materials,

with or without callouts and markups. (For presenting

PowerPoint presentations at trial, please see "PowerPoint

Presentations" above.)

TrialPad: $89.99 trial presentation app that may be

appropriate for matters where a full computer setup

and support are not justified. It has been hailed as

an improvement over prior apps and a legitimate

substitute for a full-blown trial presentation

software suite in certain situations, and with certain

limitations.13

ExhibitView iPad: $29.99 app. The PC version of the

product, ExhibitView PC, is not required to use the

iPad app, but users of ExhibitView PC will find that

the iPad app looks and acts similarly and will be able

to transfer entire ExhibitView cases from their PCs to

their iPads.

Exhibit A: $9.99 trial presentation app.

Legal Publications:

The American Lawyer: Free app

ABA Journal: Free app

11 February 10, 2011, "Exhibit A: Another iPad App for Trial Presentation"

by Ted Brooks, published in Law Technology News.

12 August 1, 2011, “Gambling on New Trial Technology” by James Monicus

III, published in Law Technology News and available at

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202508346768

13 June 27, 2011, "App Review: TrialPad 2.0 for iPad," by Rob Dean,

published by the WalkingOffice blog and available at

http://www.walkingoffice.com/applications/app-review-trialpad-2-0-for-ipad/

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202508346768

http://www.walkingoffice.com/applications/app-review-trialpad-2-0-for-ipad/





www.CarolGerber.com

Law Technology News: Free app

Flipboard: Although not limited to legal publications, I

find that this free app makes it much easier to follow

updates from legal news sources that publish through

RSS feeds and, especially, Twitter.

Earning CLE Credit:

PLI Mobile CLE: Practicing Law Institute’s free iPhone app

will work on an iPad, too. Charges will apply for the

CLE classes.

CLE Mobile: West Legal Ed Center’s free iPad app. Charges

will apply for the CLE classes.

Time Entry:

One of the challenges associated with working remotely is

creating and submitting accurate and timely time entries.

In addition to the myriad free apps available to create

timers that you start and stop manually, apps also exist

that let attorneys create and submit contemporaneous time

entries for work done outside the office, which might

otherwise go unbilled. In exchange for this convenience,

however, firms will have to consider how they will

integrate these apps with their time and billing systems,

and the extent to which they will allow attorneys to submit

time and billing information over the Internet.

iTimeKeep: Free app that integrates with most time and

billing systems to allow attorneys to enter time

remotely. Firms must pay for the service, which

includes encrypted transfer of information between the

iPad and the firm’s systems.

AIRTIME Manager Time Capture: Free app to create time

entries manually or through a stopwatch. Users of the

free app can e-mail time entries to themselves, and

the app can also be integrated with several firm time

entry systems.

IntApp's Time Builder: This web service, which works like

an app, allows iPad users at firms using Time Builder

to enter time into their firm's time entry system from

their iPad, and to use their iPads to review, edit and

submit time entries from all sources.



Additional Resources as of June 12, 2012


www.CarolGerber.com

The unprecedented popularity of iPads within the legal community

has captured the imagination of the press and the blogosphere.

Of the many sources for information on professional applications

of iPads, here are a few that I have found to be worth watching:

Blogs Covering How Attorneys Use iPads:

iPhone J.D. (covering iPhones and iPads):

http://www.iphonejd.com

Walking Office: http://www.walkingoffice.com/

iPad Notebook: http://www.ipadnotebook.wordpress.com (This

is not a blog specifically for lawyers, but it is

written by a lawyer.)

iPad 4 Lawyers: http://ipad4lawyers.squarespace.com/

Macs in Law (covering Macs, iPhones and iPads):

http://www.macsinlaw.com/

Attorney at Work: http://www.attorneyatwork.com/

Not specifically about iPads or technology, but

the blog often includes posts about both topics.

Technolawyer’s Blawgworld: If you don’t want to keep up

with the individual blogs, you can subscribe to

Technolawyer’s free Blawgworld newsletter for a

weekly summary of the best posts from the other

blogs. http://www.technolawyer.com/blawgworld.asp

Publications Covering How Lawyers Use iPads:

Law Technology News:

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/index.jsp

http://www.iphonejd.com/

http://www.walkingoffice.com/

http://www.ipadnotebook.wordpress.com/

http://ipad4lawyers.squarespace.com/

http://www.macsinlaw.com/

http://www.attorneyatwork.com/

http://www.technolawyer.com/blawgworld.asp

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/index.jsp



Additional Resources as of June 12, 2012


www.CarolGerber.com

Books about How Lawyers Use iPads:

Tom Mighell, “iPad in One Hour for Lawyers,” published by

the Law Practice Management Section of the

American Bar Association in April of 2011, is a

useful getting started guide for attorneys.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ipad-in-one-hour-

for-lawyers/id453289812?mt=11

David Sparks, "iPad at Work," published in October 2011 is

a very helpful guide for going beyond the basics.

http://www.amazon.com/iPad-at-Work-David-

Sparks/dp/1118100565

CLE Classes:

Gerber Amalgamated LLC can provide a version of this class

that is customized for your firm's systems and

policies. http://www.CarolGerber.com

ALI-ABA’s “60 iPhone and iPad Apps in 60 Minutes for

Lawyers” CLE class cannot be viewed on an iPad,

but will be useful for those interested in a

deeper dive into the applications available for

attorneys. The class is available on demand at

http://www.ali-

aba.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=courses.course&cours

e_code=RSTP06

ALI-ABA’s “Legal Technologies 101: iPads and Twitter and

Blogs, Oh My!” class reviews iPads and other

emerging legal technologies. The class is

available on demand at http://www.ali-


e_code=RSTP07

ALI-ABA has also run specialized CLE classes on "iPad for

Litigators" http://www.ali-


e_code=RSTP13 and "iPad for Transactional

Lawyers" http://www.ali-


e_code=TSTW06 (Neither class is currently

available on demand.)

http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ipad-in-one-hour-for-lawyers/id453289812?mt=11

http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ipad-in-one-hour-for-lawyers/id453289812?mt=11

http://www.amazon.com/iPad-at-Work-David-Sparks/dp/1118100565

http://www.amazon.com/iPad-at-Work-David-Sparks/dp/1118100565

http://www.carolgerber.com/

http://www.ali-aba.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=courses.course&course_code=RSTP06









http://www.ali-aba.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=courses.course&course_code=TSTW06



NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONCommittee on Professional Ethics

Opinion 842 (9/10/10)

Topic: Using an outside online storage provider to store client confidentialinformation.

Digest: A lawyer may use an online data storage system to store and back up clientconfidential information provided that the lawyer takes reasonable care to ensure that confidentialitywill be maintained in a manner consistent with the lawyer’s obligations under Rule 1.6. In addition,the lawyer should stay abreast of technological advances to ensure that the storage system remainssufficiently advanced to protect the client’s information, and should monitor the changing law ofprivilege to ensure that storing the information online will not cause loss or waiver of any privilege.

Rules: 1.4, 1.6(a), 1.6(c)

QUESTION

1. May a lawyer use an online system to store a client's confidential informationwithout violating the duty of confidentiality or any other duty? If so, what steps should thelawyer take to ensure that the information is sufficiently secure?

OPINION

2. Various companies offer online computer data storage systems that aremaintained on an array of Internet servers located around the world. (The array of Internetservers that store the data is often called the “cloud.") A solo practitioner would like to useone of these online “cloud” computer data storage systems to store client confidentialinformation. The lawyer’s aim is to ensure that his clients’ information will not be lost ifsomething happens to the lawyer’s own computers. The online data storage system ispassword-protected and the data stored in the online system is encrypted.

3. A discussion of confidential information implicates Rule 1.6 of the New YorkRules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”), the general rule governing confidentiality. Rule1.6(a) provides as follows:

A lawyer shall not knowingly reveal confidential information . . . or use such information tothe disadvantage of a client or for the advantage of a lawyer or a third person, unless:

(1) the client gives informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(j);

(2) the disclosure is impliedly authorized to advance the best interests of the client and iseither reasonable under the circumstances or customary in the professional community; or

(3) the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

4. The obligation to preserve client confidential information extends beyond

merely prohibiting an attorney from revealing confidential information without client consent.A lawyer must also take reasonable care to affirmatively protect a client’s confidentialinformation. See N.Y. County 733 (2004) (an attorney “must diligently preserve the client’sconfidences, whether reduced to digital format, paper, or otherwise”). As a New Jersey ethicscommittee observed, even when a lawyer wants a closed client file to be destroyed, "[s]implyplacing the files in the trash would not suffice. Appropriate steps must be taken to ensure thatconfidential and privileged information remains protected and not available to thirdparties." New Jersey Opinion (2006), quoting New Jersey Opinion 692 (2002).

5. In addition, Rule 1.6(c) provides that an attorney must “exercise reasonablecare to prevent . . . others whose services are utilized by the lawyer from disclosing or usingconfidential information of a client” except to the extent disclosure is permitted by Rule1.6(b). Accordingly, a lawyer must take reasonable affirmative steps to guard against the riskof inadvertent disclosure by others who are working under the attorney’s supervision or whohave been retained by the attorney to assist in providing services to the client. We note,however, that exercising "reasonable care" under Rule 1.6 does not mean that the lawyerguarantees that the information is secure from any unauthorized access.

6. To date, no New York ethics opinion has addressed the ethics of storingconfidential information online. However, in N.Y. State 709 (1998) this Committee addressedthe duty to preserve a client’s confidential information when transmitting such informationelectronically. Opinion 709 concluded that lawyers may transmit confidential information bye-mail, but cautioned that “lawyers must always act reasonably in choosing to use e-mail forconfidential communications.” The Committee also warned that the exercise of reasonablecare may differ from one case to the next. Accordingly, when a lawyer is on notice that theconfidential information being transmitted is “of such an extraordinarily sensitive nature thatit is reasonable to use only a means of communication that is completely under the lawyer’scontrol, the lawyer must select a more secure means of communication than unencryptedInternet e-mail.” See also Rule 1.6, cmt. 17 (a lawyer “must take reasonable precautions” toprevent information coming into the hands of unintended recipients when transmittinginformation relating to the representation, but is not required to use special security measuresif the means of communicating provides a reasonable expectation of privacy).

7. Ethics advisory opinions in several other states have approved the use ofelectronic storage of client files provided that sufficient precautions are in place. See, e.g.,New Jersey Opinion 701 (2006) (lawyer may use electronic filing system whereby alldocuments are scanned into a digitized format and entrusted to someone outside the firmprovided that the lawyer exercises “reasonable care,” which includes entrusting documents toa third party with an enforceable obligation to preserve confidentiality and security, andemploying available technology to guard against reasonably foreseeable attempts to infiltratedata); Arizona Opinion 05-04 (2005) (electronic storage of client files is permissible providedlawyers and law firms “take competent and reasonable steps to assure that the client’sconfidences are not disclosed to third parties through theft or inadvertence”); see also ArizonaOpinion 09-04 (2009) (lawyer may provide clients with an online file storage and retrievalsystem that clients may access, provided lawyer takes reasonable precautions to protect

security and confidentiality and lawyer periodically reviews security measures as technologyadvances over time to ensure that the confidentiality of client information remains reasonablyprotected).

8. Because the inquiring lawyer will use the online data storage system for thepurpose of preserving client information - a purpose both related to the retention andnecessary to providing legal services to the client - using the online system is consistent withconduct that this Committee has deemed ethically permissible. See N.Y. State 473 (1977)(absent client’s objection, lawyer may provide confidential information to outside serviceagency for legitimate purposes relating to the representation provided that the lawyerexercises care in the selection of the agency and cautions the agency to keep the informationconfidential); cf. NY CPLR 4548 (privileged communication does not lose its privilegedcharacter solely because it is communicated by electronic means or because “personsnecessary for the delivery or facilitation of such electronic communication may have access to”its contents).

9. We conclude that a lawyer may use an online “cloud” computer data backupsystem to store client files provided that the lawyer takes reasonable care to ensure that thesystem is secure and that client confidentiality will be maintained. “Reasonable care” toprotect a client’s confidential information against unauthorized disclosure may includeconsideration of the following steps:

Ensuring that the online data storage provider has an enforceable obligation to preserveconfidentiality and security, and that the provider will notify the lawyer if served with processrequiring the production of client information;

1.

Investigating the online data storage provider's security measures, policies, recoverabilitymethods, and other procedures to determine if they are adequate under the circumstances;

1.

Employing available technology to guard against reasonably foreseeable attempts to infiltratethe data that is stored; and/or

1.

10. Technology and the security of stored data are changing rapidly. Even aftertaking some or all of these steps (or similar steps), therefore, the lawyer should periodicallyreconfirm that the provider’s security measures remain effective in light of advances intechnology. If the lawyer learns information suggesting that the security measures used bythe online data storage provider are insufficient to adequately protect the confidentiality ofclient information, or if the lawyer learns of any breach of confidentiality by the online storageprovider, then the lawyer must investigate whether there has been any breach of his or herown clients’ confidential information, notify any affected clients, and discontinue use of theservice unless the lawyer receives assurances that any security issues have been sufficientlyremediated. See Rule 1.4 (mandating communication with clients); see also N.Y. State 820(2008) (addressing Web-based email services).

11. Not only technology itself but also the law relating to technology and theprotection of confidential communications is changing rapidly. Lawyers using online storagesystems (and electronic means of communication generally) should monitor these legal

developments, especially regarding instances when using technology may waive an otherwiseapplicable privilege. See, e.g., City of Ontario, Calif. v. Quon, 130 S. Ct. 2619, 177 L.Ed.2d 216(2010) (holding that City did not violate Fourth Amendment when it reviewed transcripts ofmessages sent and received by police officers on police department pagers); Scott v. Beth IsraelMedical Center, 17 Misc. 3d 934, 847 N.Y.S.2d 436 (N.Y. Sup. 2007) (e-mails between hospitalemployee and his personal attorneys were not privileged because employer’s policy regardingcomputer use and e-mail monitoring stated that employees had no reasonable expectation ofprivacy in e-mails sent over the employer's e-mail server). But see Stengart v. Loving CareAgency, Inc., 201 N.J. 300, 990 A.2d 650 (2010) (despite employer’s e-mail policy stating thatcompany had right to review and disclose all information on “the company’s media systemsand services” and that e-mails were “not to be considered private or personal” to anyemployees, company violated employee's attorney-client privilege by reviewing e-mails sent toemployee’s personal attorney on employer's laptop through employee’s personal,password-protected e-mail account).

12. This Committee’s prior opinions have addressed the disclosure of confidentialinformation in metadata and the perils of practicing law over the Internet. We have noted inthose opinions that the duty to “exercise reasonable care” to prevent disclosure of confidentialinformation “may, in some circumstances, call for the lawyer to stay abreast of technologicaladvances and the potential risks” in transmitting information electronically. N.Y. State 782(2004), citing N.Y. State 709 (1998) (when conducting trademark practice over the Internet,lawyer had duty to “stay abreast of this evolving technology to assess any changes in thelikelihood of interception as well as the availability of improved technologies that may reducesuch risks at reasonable cost”); see also N.Y. State 820 (2008) (same in context of using e-mailservice provider that scans e-mails to generate computer advertising). The same duty to staycurrent with the technological advances applies to a lawyer's contemplated use of an onlinedata storage system.

CONCLUSION

13. A lawyer may use an online data storage system to store and back up clientconfidential information provided that the lawyer takes reasonable care to ensure thatconfidentiality is maintained in a manner consistent with the lawyer’s obligations under Rule1.6. A lawyer using an online storage provider should take reasonable care to protectconfidential information, and should exercise reasonable care to prevent others whose servicesare utilized by the lawyer from disclosing or using confidential information of a client. Inaddition, the lawyer should stay abreast of technological advances to ensure that the storagesystem remains sufficiently advanced to protect the client’s information, and the lawyershould monitor the changing law of privilege to ensure that storing information in the “cloud”will not waive or jeopardize any privilege protecting the information.

(75-09)




P.O. Box 8295

Red Bank, NJ 07701

[email protected]

www.CarolGerber.com


Index to Written Materials

Section I: Introduction

Presenter’s Bio


Technology Options Chart

United States District Court, Southern District of New

York, Standing Order M10-468 re “Electronic Devices

and General Purposes Computing Devices,” dated Feb.

18, 2010


New York State Bar Association Committee on

Professional Ethics Opinion 842, dated September 10,

2010

American Bar Association Commission on Ethics 20/20

Report to the House Delegates, Resolution dated August

2012.

Summary of State Bar Associations' Ethics Opinions

Relating to Cloud Computer and Emerging Technologies,

as of June 11, 2012

Section IV: Available Apps for Attorneys

Compilation of available apps as of June 13, 2012

Section V: Additional Resources

List of suggested additional resources as of June 12,

2012