Ari Kaplan, Reinventing Professionals
I spoke with Michael do Rozario and Brian Borskjaer, Special Counsel and Director of the firm’s Legal Technology Solutions team, respectively, at Corrs Chambers Westgarth, a prominent Australian law firm with offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth.
We discussed Casefolio, the firm’s new award-winning document review app, its development, and the user experience, among many other topics. (read the post)
Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal
A small but growing number of law firms are launching apps that help and possibly impress their clients.
Latham & Watkins released its latest app last week, one that helps clients learn more about overseas anti-bribery laws, the Recorder reports. Previous apps by the firm explain jargon in fields such as finance and capital markets.
Law firm consultant Kent Zimmermann says the apps are getting more sophisticated and can be used to bolster image. “It sends a message to the market that this isn’t your grandfather’s law firm anymore,” he told the Recorder. (read the article)
For a profession sometimes criticized as being slow to change, the law seems to be flying into use of cloud computing for legal work.
The ABA Legal Technology Resource Center’s 2013 survey of ABA lawyers shows a heady amount of satisfaction with online-based software solutions. Among this year’s findings in the report’s volume on law office technology are:
• Asked if they had ever used Web-based software, 30.7 percent of respondents answered affirmatively. That number is up from 20.9 percent in 2012 and 15.5 percent in 2011. Solo practitioners were the most likely to respond affirmatively at 40.2 percent.
• Among those who reported having used cloud computing for law-related tasks, 70.4 percent said they would continue using them in the future. While 8.8 percent said they would not use them, 14.7 percent answered “maybe.”
• Among those who reported they had not used cloud computing, the top factors that prevented them were:
» 57.7 percent: confidentiality and security concerns.
» 47.4 percent: less control of data because it’s hosted by the provider.
» 47.4 percent: unfamiliarity with the technology.
» 17 percent: cost. (read the post)
Steve Fletcher, CIO at Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, speaks to issues “bring your own device” policies create at law firms, such as securing client data.
This video originally appeared in Law Technology News. (watch the interview)
The SANS Institute’s Top 20 Critical Controls can help prioritize and fund information security initiatives
Matt Sorensen, Mattew Richards, InsideCounsel
Information security programs are mandatory for certain industries and most government agencies. It can bewilder in-house counsel to navigate the many technical and administrative requirements. Fortunately, there are a number of resources to help. One framework, in particular, is gaining acceptance as a best practice for information security programs: the SANS Institute’s Top 20 Critical Controls. Both attorneys and management can use the SANS controls to prioritize and fund information security initiatives.
Following is a primer for nontechnologists on the objectives and benefits of each of the Top 20 Controls.
1. Inventory of authorized and unauthorized devices. (read the article)
John Edwards, Law Technology News
Attorneys often find themselves operating in separate camps, such as plaintiff-defendant, prosecution-defense, civil-criminal, private-public and, perhaps most contentiously, Android-iPhone.
While both iPhones and Androids deliver a smartphone experience that keeps attorneys connected wherever they go, each platform takes a unique and sometimes idiosyncratic approach to features and capabilities. These differences have helped build strong user loyalties in both camps. (read the article)
A step-by-step approach to establishing a more defensible methodology
Randall Burrows, InsideCounsel
With technology-assisted review (TAR) gaining judicial support, practitioners now face the next hurdle: defending its accuracy and reliability.
TAR is something of a misnomer, however. Left to its own devices, the TAR algorithm would remain a black box that yields inexplicable results. The best way to achieve transparency is to leverage the know-how of experienced lawyers and other experts who can establish sound processes and work with opposing counsel to preempt disputes. As Judge Andrew Peck stated in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, such transparency “allows the opposing side to be more comfortable with computer-assisted review and reduces fears about the so-called black box of the technology.” (read the article)
Every other year, Corporate Counsel fields a survey about how U.S. corporate legal departments use technology, both in terms of devices and how it helps them do their jobs (here’s the 2011 edition). Now we’re inviting IT heads to participate in the 2013 In-House Tech Survey. (read the article)
Take the 2013 survey here.
Attorneys must keep pace with technological advancements to meet their “duty of competence” to clients
Matt Nelson, InsideCounsel
The American Bar Association (ABA) approved an important new resolution in August that requires lawyers to keep pace with “relevant technology” in order to comply with their obligation to competently represent clients. Although the resolution has largely flown under the radar, the change is significant because the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) serve as a guide for the ethical rules governing lawyers in most states. Failure to comply with state ethics rules can lead to various penalties for lawyers, including temporary or permanent disbarment. That means in-house counsel need to understand the level of technological proficiency required to competently represent clients today and in the future.
Amended Model Rule 1.1 and the duty of competence (read the article)
Steve Fletcher, Law Technology News
Never before have law firms been at a greater risk of exposing confidential information than with today’s mobile devices. Faster than you can say iPhone 5, firms are suddenly supporting hundreds or thousands of mobile devices — up to two and three each for lawyers like Paul. It’s as if our secured network walls are being stormed by an army of wireless device owners demanding access to everything inside. Technology leaders must be ready for this fight — or they risk losing everything.
Mobile device security issues fall into four key categories. One is an accident; the others are criminal.
#1 — OOPS!
The most common mobility battle is the accidental loss of a device. (read the post)