Rule 3.01 (1) of the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Rules of Professional Conduct is always overshadowed by its sister rules. Yet, it is perhaps one of the most important rules of our profession:

3.01(1) A lawyer shall make legal services available to the public in an efficient and convenient way.

This rule suggests that if a lawyer is not providing legal services in an efficient manner, she is breaching the rule; and, if a lawyer is not providing legal services in a convenient manner, she is also breaching the rule. Interestingly enough, the commentary in rule 3.01 . . . [more]

Last week saw the unveiling of the long-awaited Google Drive. I won’t discuss the technical details of what Google Drive delivers – others have done so in great detail – but instead focus on Google Drive’s controversial Terms of Service.

The following clause of the Google Drive Terms of Service immediately generated a firestorm of controversy:

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we

I predict that Windows 8 will not catch on for mid-sized and large law firms. Windows 8 Enterprise is offered and has some interesting features, but the change is so huge that I see little potential for adoption by law firms.

Today our IT Manager showed me his iPad running a virtual instance of Windows 8 sourced from his home Mac. The interface has radical and interesting new flavour that sources apps and reminds me of my iPhone.

Among many others, BBC News has a preview article today. Microsoft also offers a consumer preview that links to a video for . . . [more]

Risk management has been a hot topic in the corporate community for about 10 years, springing mostly from scandals such as Enron, Worldcom and more recently the financial crisis of 2008. The devastation that these events wrought forced boards of directors to devote significant resources to managing risk and to keep abreast of what is happening in the world at large.

When one looks at law firms, we see that attention is paid to risk management only in the micro-sense; controls are put in place to prevent lawyers and staff from stealing trust funds, there are some controls over who . . . [more]

Last week The Delimiter ran a story about the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) criticizing Australian organizations for their preference to host cloud data within Australia’s borders:

A number of US companies had expressed concerns that various departments in the Australian Government, namely, the Department of Defence, The National Archives of Australia, the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) and the State of Victoria’s Privacy Commissioner had been sending negative messages about cloud providers based outside the country, implying that “hosting data overseas, including in the United States, by definition entails

One needs to do little else than glance at the ABA TECHSHOW 2012 conference schedule and exhibitor list to get a sense of how quickly and dramatically cloud computing is reshaping the legal technology industry.

Four years ago at my first ABA TECHSHOW, there was one or two companies doing what we today call “cloud computing” on the exhibit hall floor (I remember this fondly because this is where we launched Clio). This year I count over 30 companies on the exhibit floor that either provide cloud-based software or cloud-enabled applications.

In 2008 there were no conference tracks on the . . . [more]

Last week I wrote on The High Cost of Cloud Computing Due Diligence, and asked readers what thoughts they had on how the burden of cloud computing due diligence could be reduced.

In his post on The Myth of Due Diligence, David Whelan questions the assumption that we should apply more strict due diligence requirements to the cloud than to traditional desktop-based software:

If due diligence is called for – and something is, whether it needs that name or not – then it should apply equally to the wireless routers, operating systems, and locally installed software within law

Those of you who read the Globe and Mail may have seen in today’s paper the report by Jeff Gray, “Yes, Virginia, this is a rant from the bench,” reporting an edited version of what Justice David Brown had to say from the bench, Thursday, about Ontario’s paper-based document management system. I might not have called it a “rant,” which suggests a lack of control; rather, it’s a scathing and at times sardonic denunciation by a judge fully in control of his facts and his language. It concludes:

[17] If some may consider such criticism un-judicial in

If you have an iPhone 4S and have interacted with the voice control personality “Siri”, then you likely already know about its limited functionality outside the US market. So when the news came out a few days ago about Siri’s improved responses for queries about weather and time, it still left me feeling a bit underwhelmed.

Voice recognition technologies have been around for many many years now. In the legal space, because of lawyer dictation technologies, we know better than most about the slow rates of adoption. For 20+ years, there’s been a small community of lawyers dedicated to . . . [more]

An ever-increasing body of ethics opinions and reports on the suitability of cloud computing for lawyers aim to provide guidance that may appear deceptively straightforward. Take the following as an example:

Cloud computing is acceptable, but make sure you first undertake an appropriate level of due diligence on your prospective cloud computing provider.

While this doesn’t appear onerous on the surface, the cumulative expense of performing due diligence on multiple cloud providers could prove to be prohibitive for solo- and small-firm lawyers – the very demographic that benefits most directly from cloud computing.

Take the simple task of reviewing privacy . . . [more]

After nearly two years since publishing its first proposal on the topic, the North Carolina State Bar has adopted its Formal Ethics Opinion on cloud computing (thanks to Steph Kimbro for the heads up). The opinion, titled 2011 Formal Ethics Opinion 6: Subscribing to Software as a Service While Fulfilling the Duties of Confidentiality and Preservation of Client Property, concludes that:

a law firm may contract with a vendor of software as a service provided the lawyer uses reasonable care to safeguard confidential client information

Like the Law Society of British Columbia’s Report on Cloud Computing, the . . . [more]