My quest for better file access started with a nagging suspicion that my shrinking storage containers would be my downfall. I went mobile with a laptop, which was smaller than my desktop and was portable. Then I added a handheld computer, which was still smaller and even more portable: no cords, no bags. On to USB thumb drives and finally shifting to a 2 GB micro SD card about the size of a raisin. Portability raised the likelihood of my files being lost or stolen if I misplaced the container in which they were stored. I solved the problem . . . [more]

I recently participated in a panel discussion called “Unbundled Work/Unbridled Success: Sourcing Canadian Legal Services Differently” at the Sixth Annual Canadian Bar Association Law Firm Leadership Conference. A significant portion of the conference covered legal process outsourcing (“LPO”). Professor Richard Susskind moderated the session on LPO. The conference was well attended by virtually all of the major law firms in Canada and the majority of the attendees were the managing partners of these firms. 

The conference was a personal highlight for me, for two reasons. Firstly, Richard Susskind was the moderator of the LPO session. Need I . . . [more]

As readers know, SLAW has regularly posted on the good work of the people at the Canadian Legal Information Institute and the free access to law movement.

I see they are now advertising for the position of CanLII President. If you are interested in applying, or know of someone who you think would be interested, contact information for applications is providing on the page at the foregoing link. . . . [more]

In the spirit of the season, here are some iPad apps of possible interest to SLAW readers:

• Dragon Dictation: I am excited to "train" this new version of Dragon Dictation for the iPad but have been too busy to do so. I have heard good things. I remember trying version 1 of Dragon Dictation on what I think back then was a 486 computer. One assumes this new version will work more smoothly.

• UTL Mobile App: Perhaps of more interest to those in the Toronto area is the free University of Toronto mobile app, which allows for searching

. . . [more]

This week in biotech was all about surveillance:

Two Toronto scientists studied over two million tweets to assess the social network’s value as a public health surveillance tool and came away impressed. Even though social networks open some completely new avenues to gathering data and interacting, for the most part they are just valuable tools for use in traditional processes according to a recent Deloitte report. and .

MaRS CEO Ilse Treurnicht, doing a bit of surveillance of her own on some publication surveillance data, noted that China is now second in publication of biomedical research articles globally . . . [more]

There’s an interesting conversation over at Edge — not the legal consulting company, but the foundation that holds colloquiums on important issues in science, philosophy, and art. This discussion is entitled Who Gets to Keep Secrets? and the question was posed by Daniel Hillis, a computer scientist, who amplified it thus:

The question of secrecy in the information age is clearly a deep social (and mathematical) problem, and well worth paying attention to.

When does my right to privacy trump your need for security? Should a democratic government be allowed to practice secret diplomacy? Would we rather live in

. . . [more]

A lawyer with the City of Ottawa was active in community activities, and with permission of his employer spent some time on those activities at the office. His email to and from one of the charities became the subject of an access to information request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). He resisted disclosure of the emails on the ground that they had nothing to do with government business, the disclosure of which was the purpose of the Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner held in April 2009 that the emails must be disclosed: . . . [more]

The ABA Journal had a news link today titled, “Do Judges Read Online Briefs Differently? Brief Writers May Need to Be Briefer“. The post discussed a Texas Lawyer article on e-filing and what that might mean to legal writing. Interesting stuff. The idea of fewer words to convey a point may be necessary if reading moves primarily to a screen.

A colleague once asserted that there was a bunch of literature showing that reading on screen was slower than reading from paper, and he was right. Here are some examples of studies that support this premise:

• Dillon, A.,

. . . [more]

Companies are clearly interested in exploring alternative ways of resolving disputes. While only 14 % of corporations surveyed by Rochier in Finland and Sweden say they have so far participated in mediation or another alternative dispute resolution process, this percentage may rise as companies continue to seek simplified dispute resolution procedures and flexible solutions. The second most important conclusion is that corporations in Sweden and Finland are cost conscious, with an eye on cost cutting and improved cost management when it comes to conflict management and resolution. Conflict prevention is the buzz word over dispute resolution.

And now a post from snowbound London.

During the bail hearing of Julian Assange, the presiding magistrate, District Judge Howard Riddle, gave permission for journalists in attendance to use live blogging technology in reporting proceedings. In doing so, in the interests of practicality, he waltzed past provisions in the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibited the use of recording media in court. It spurred a debate in England about the appropriate limits.

This spurred the senior judge in England – the wonderfully named Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Judge – to issue formal guidance to the . . . [more]

When I talk with people in the legal marketplace about alternative fee arrangements, I often hear two common objections. Interestingly, one is raised by lawyers and the other by clients. 

Lawyers say they don’t want to offer fixed fees because they figure that the client, having bought what is essentially an unlimited amount of legal services, will then deluge the lawyer with phone calls, emails, and tasks of varying complexity, burying the lawyer in work for which he or she will never be compensated. Clients, on the other hand, say they don’t want to accept fixed fees because they figure . . . [more]

A self-represented Applicant won an award of $5,000 from the Federal Court today in Nammo v. Transunion of Canada Inc. for violations of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), the first time that damages have ever been awarded under this statute.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada (PCC) made a finding on January 22, 2010 that the Applicant’s complaint, made on April 8, 2008, was well founded, but resolved. The hearing request was then made under s. 14 of the Act,

Hearing by Court

Application
14. (1) A complainant may, after receiving the Commissioner’s report, apply to the

. . . [more]