Check out the quarterly issue of Circuits.
Relevant and current issues with some of your favorite authors – John Browning, Ron Chichester, Shawn Tuma, and MORE!
Materials by Al Harrison (Houston) and Ron Chichester (Tomball) at the State Bar of Texas 2017 Annual Meeting: Cybersecurity: Ethically Safeguarding Your Clients’ Data and Your Law License.
Review by Ronald Chichester, Council Member of the Computer & Technology Section
This is a review of LegalBoard’s lawyer-oriented keyboard. According to the box, “LegalBoard (tm) allows legal professionals to type more efficiently. With a single keystroke, you can insert common legal terms, turn track changes on and off, and more.”
LegalBoard is a full-featured keyboard with number pad. The fit and finish of the keyboard is excellent. The keystrokes are not stiff, and the keyboard has a nice tactile feel. The extras, however, set it apart from the competition.
LegalBoard is made for that subset of lawyers who write briefs. More specifically, LegalBoard is for those lawyers who write briefs using Microsoft Word on Windows. For those lawyers who don’t do Windows, or who don’t use Word, take heart. Most of the legal-functionality on the keyboard is available for those who are using other word processors (like LibreOffice) and text editors on Windows or other operating systems (like Mac or Linux).
The extra functionality of LegalBoard comes in four different sets: 1) text-insert; 2) formatting; 3) special character insertion; and 4) Word-specific commands. The keyboard functions in two modes: A) standard; and B) legal. While in standard mode, the keyboard functions just like any other keyboard. The legal-specific functionality is invoked by pressing a special “L” button on the upper-left of the number pad.
Once in legal mode, all four sets of legal-specific functions are available, although some of the functions are available only for Word on Windows (and not even Word on the Mac).
The text-insert functionality is available on all word-processors and text editors in all three major operating systems (Windows, Mac and Linux). Yes, you can use this functionality for LaTex on Linux and just about anything else. There are text-insert keys for: “see”, “e.g.”, “U.S.”, “F.3d”, “F.2d”, “F.Supp.”, “U.S.C.”, “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Appellant”, “Respondant”, “Supreme Court”, and “Court of Appeals”. Less time, fewer typos.
The formatting keys include bold, italic and underline (which work pretty well in Word and non-Word applications on all the operating systems). There are, however, some nifty formatting functions that work only on Word for Windows, namely the single/1.5/double spacing buttons. Quite handy for briefs.
There are special character keys for Section (“§”), Paragraph (“¶”) Copyright (“©”) characters. Yes, you can get the same functionality by playing tricks with your autocorrect feature, but having it as one-keystroke is quite desirable. These character keys simply invoke the Alt-xxx function, and may be adaptable to other operating systems with the right kind of driver.
The final set of features are available only on Word for Windows. One key toggles Track Changes on/off. Another adds a comment to a Word Document (and the Shift-comment key toggles back and forth between the comment box or the original cursor position). Another key starts a bullet list. Yet another button adds a footnote in a single keystroke! There is also a button to toggle the small caps formatting. Finally, there is a button to open and (Shift+) close the find window in Word.
Although advertised specifically for the Word-for-Windows market, many of the features of the LegalBoard are available to other brief-writers. Someday, someone is going to make a programmable keyboard that can be set up for any word processor on any operating system. Until that day arrives, however, LegalBoard is simply the best legal-brief-specific keyboard out there.
by Ronald L. Chichester, past chair of the Computer & Technology Section
This article is one of a series that caters to small law offices in Texas (e.g., five or fewer attorneys). The articles will cover topics involving technology that small law firms need occasionally, but not often enough to warrant the purchase of a license or a subscription to a service. In other words, something on the cheap for occasional use. We’ll concentrate on those technologies that are less likely to cause a violation of the Disciplinary Rules or cause your client to lose their attorney-client privilege.
Over the last several years, attorneys have adopted services such as DropBox and Box to store and transfer large numbers of files (or files larger than would fit as an email attachment. While these services are convenient, a recent Virginia case has law firms searching for viable alternatives. The case in question was Harleysville Ins. Co. v. Holding Funeral Home, Inc. (W.D. VA, Feb. 9, 2017). In that case, the client needed to transfer a large number of files — including the all-important claims file — so that an agent with the National Insurance Crime Bureau could access the files. Here, the client chose to use the Box service as the transfer medium. The client uploaded the files to a Box account and then sent an email to the agent with a hyperlink to the storage area. Anyone with access to that hyperlink could access the files. No password or encryption was used to protect the files. In cyber parlance, the plaintiff relied on security through obscurity. Subsequently, the Bureau responded to a subpoena from the defendant and provided the email containing the hyperlink (among other documents) to opposing counsel, the latter of whom proceeded to gain access to the claims file. The plaintiff moved to disqualify all defense counsel. The defendant responded by claiming that the plaintiff had waived privilege.
Magistrate Judge Sargent, using Virginia law, ruled in favor of the defendant and deemed the disclosure of the claims file to be inadvertant, rather than involuntary, and the plaintiff did not “implement sufficient precautions to mainting its confidentiality.” Indeed, in ruling for the defendant, the Judge Sargent noted that the plaintiff didn’t undertake “any precautions” to safeguard the information. Futher, the court noted:
“It does not matter whether this employee believed that this site would function for only a short period of time or that the information uploaded to the site would be accessible for only a short period of time. Because of his previous use of the Box Site, this employee either knew — or should have known — that the information uploaded to the site was not protected in any way and could be accessed by anyone who simply clicked on the hyperlink. Despite this, this employee purposefully uploaded the Claims File to the Box Site, making it accessible to anyone with access to the internet, thus making the extent of the disclosure vast.”
Several members of the Computer & Technology Section attended the Legal Tech New York conference that was held in late January, 2017. As with most legal conferences, there were vendors who cater to the needs of large law firms. In fact, by the measure of the conference organizers, small law firms had up to fifty attorneys. Clearly, the organizers of that conference live in a different world.
The vendors that were at the conference were, as usual, after money. We don’t fault them for that, but of 100+ vendors at that conference, only three of them had something of merit for small law firms in Texas.
One of those vendors was a company called TitanFile. As the company name suggests, it enables attorneys to transfer large files to their clients without the use of DropBox or Box. TitanFile has a subscription service that costs at least fifteen dollars per month, a price that is comparable to Box (minimum of three users at $5/month). DropBox has a free option, but the space for that option is capped at 2 GB.
One of the problems with Box and DropBox is security, privacy and attorney-client privilege, as the Virginia case attests. In addition to the security concerns is the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, namely Rule 1.05 regarding Client Confidences, in particular 1.05(b)(1)(ii). Put quite simply, the uploading of client confidences to something like Box or DropBox might be deemded to run afoul of Rule 1.05 because those services are outside the posession or control of the attorney. It should be said at this point that the Bar has not expressly stated that those services run afoul of 1.05, but several attorneys (the author included) have refrained from using Box or DropBox for client information precisely because the attorney cannot completely control who has access to that information, how or where the information is backed up, and who has the keys to any encryption used (or not). This, of course, begs the question…
Yes! Does that less expensive alternative require the purchase of a software license? No. Does the less expensive alternative require a subscription? No.
OwnCloud is an open source replacement for Box and DropBox. Actually, OwnCloud is more than just file storage and file sharing. With OwnCloud, you can sync calendars, contacts, mail and quite a lot more. Even better, OwnCloud uses an authentication mechanism (by default), which is what the Viginia Judge found missing in the plaintiff’s web service.
For you and your client, all that is needed to access the data is a standard web browser and a machine to run OwnCloud that is accessible via the Internet. For most attorneys, however, the requirement of an Internet-accessible machine is a show stopper. However, you shouldn’t let that deter you because…
DigitalOcean is a service that hosts virtual machines that are accessible via the Internet. DigitalOcean offers “Droplets” which are pre-configured machines that you create, use, and then destroy. You pay only for as long as the virtual machine is in existence.
Does DigitalOcean have a pre-configured droplet for OwnCloud? Yes! Which means that you can install and deploy OwnCloud on an Internet-accessible machine in about 55 seconds.
The upside is that the attorney has complete control of the OwnCloud virtual machine. You create a droplet. Tell OwnCloud who can access it, and transfer the data with your client. When you’re finished, simply delete the droplet. Note, from bitter experience, I have learned that once a droplet has been deleted, no one can get it back. The information is gone — permanently. That’s a good thing. Once you delete that droplet, you can honestly say to your client that the data that was on that server is gone for good. Digital Ocean does not make any attempt to back up the data under the standard contract.
If you don’t like DigitalOcean, there are alternatives…
Enter Amazon Web Services.
Amazon Web Services also has pre-configured OwnCloud virtual machines that can be created quickly and easily. Depending on what you’re doing, Amazon’s pricing may be more attractive than DigitalOcean’s.
Because OwnCloud is open source software, other companies have adopted it for the same reasons that DigitalOcean has. In fact, one of my aerospace clients routinely uses OwnCloud for data transfers for precisely the reasons noted above. If you don’t want to go to the (minor) inconvenience of setting up a tempoary OwnCloud site, your client might do it for you. Suggest it to them. The cost is minimal, and they will know that you’re looking out for their best interests.
We look forward to seeing everyone at the Computer & Technology Section’s Adaptable Lawyer Track at Annual Meeting in June. Find out more about Annual Meeting!
1 2 3 … 15 Next