Tag: competence

EthicsLaw Practice ManagementTechnology

Guarding against Inadvertent Disclosure: Properly Remove Metadata and Redact Before Transmitting Digital Docs.

image   by Sheila Blackford    ©2015

Guard against inadvertent disclosures by properly removing metadata and redact confidential information before transmitting those digital documents.

Some lessons are so important, they bear repeating. For years the Practice Management Advisors at the PLF and through out the USA and Canada have cautioned lawyers about scrubbing metadata from documents.

Here is a brief snippet from my May 2006 Oregon State Bar Bulletin Managing Your Practice article, Metadata: danger or delight?

“…Much hype has surrounded metadata ever since the March 4, 2004, CNET News.com disclosure that SCO Group’s lawsuit against defendant DaimlerChrysler for alleged violation of their Unix software agreement was initially prepped as a lawsuit against Bank of America for copyright infringement. You may have enjoyed the benefit of using a suite of programs like Microsoft Office, especially because it is easy to pull data from one program into another, such as copying part of an Excel worksheet into a Word document. However, if you do this from the Edit menu using the “Paste Special” feature and selecting “Microsoft Excel Worksheet Object,” you may be in for a surprise. Double-click on the Excel worksheet object in your Word document and you’ll discover that the entire worksheet document is visible, including other worksheet tabs that may contain sensitive information. The entire Excel worksheet is known as an embedded object and is metadata that travels with the Word document. Thus, the full Excel worksheet can be viewed by the receiver of the Word document, even though you didn’t intend that result. The detriment of exposing more that a select portion of an Excel spreadsheet may be exponential if the additional figures pertain to your negotiation strategy on settlement offers or disclose profit projections for complex financing plans.

In complying with discovery requests, you are required to provide only the documents and data set out in the discovery demand. Beware — if supplying electronic versions of your documents — that you are not providing more information than required by inadvertent disclosures in document metadata.”

And a year later, then OSB General Counsel now Executive Director Sylvia Stevens warned lawyers about the perils of being unaware of metadata and referenced the August 2006 ABA Formal Opinion 06-442 Review and Use of Metadata in her April 2007 OSB Bulletin Bar Counsel article, Metadata: Guarding Against the Disclosure of Embedded Information.

“The ABA opinion stands as an important reminder that it behooves lawyers to learn and understand technological advances that are integral to their practice so that they do not inadvertently send information that they might later wish they had not.”
 

And a few years ago, OSB General Counsel Helen Hierschbiel cautioned lawyers about the perils of inadvertent disclosures when sending documents electronically in the June 2012 OSB Bulletin Bar Counsel article, Revealing Bits & Bytes:
Guarding (and Exploiting) Metadata
.

“Two rules inform a lawyer’s duties when sending documents electronically. Oregon RPC 1.1 requires a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client, meaning the lawyer must possess the “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” In addition, RPC 1.6(a) requires a lawyer to “not reveal information relating to the representation of a client.” “Information relating to the representation” is a defined phrase under RPC 1.0(f) and includes both information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and other information gained during the course of the representation that the client has asked be kept secret or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or likely to be detrimental to the client. With these two rules as a backdrop, the OSB Legal Ethics Committee concludes that competency in relation to metadata requires a lawyer who uses electronic communications to maintain at least a basic understanding of the technology and the risks of revealing metadata or to use adequate technology support. OSB Formal Op. No. 2011-187.”

To safely redact confidential and/or protected information when producing discovery or eFiling, be sure to use Adobe Acrobat XI Pro and follow the easy steps I shared in my June 2012 OSB Bulletin On Professionalism article, Easier Acrobatics: New Adobe Features Especially Appreciated by Attorneys.

“How to Remove Visible Data or Do Redaction from PDF Files in Four Easy Steps:

This can be done in Acrobat XI Pro only.

1. In Acrobat XI, choose Tools > Protection.

2. Click Mark for Redaction.

3. Go through your PDF and highlight the text or images you want to redact.

4. Click Apply Redactions. Acrobat permanently deletes the selected information from the file, replacing it with black blocks or other formatting of your choice.”

Why all the concern? Lawyers are continuing to trip when they should be treading carefully, as stressed in this Law360 post: E-Filing Error Can Destroy Trade Secret Status that you can read in its entirety with a free 7-day subscription.

 “First rule of thumb in trade secrets litigation? A trade secret must be kept secret. It is painfully obvious, but modern practitioners must not grow complacent due to the convenience of electronic filing. Although trade secrets law does not command absolute secrecy, a recent e-filing snafu in HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt offers a cautionary tale from New York on how one botched upload could jeopardize a client’s most prized possession.”

Make no mistake, ABA Model Rule 1.1 specifically addresses the need to be competent when using technology, see the December 2013 Your ABA article Duty of Competence in the 21st Century

Model Rule 1.1:

Client-Lawyer Relationship
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 8:

Maintaining Competence

[8] “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 technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.”

Be safe out there!

Uncategorized

Just Say, “No.”

image   by Sheila Blackford   ©2015   One of the most important things you may need to tell your existing and potential clients is, “no.” When to say no can be difficult for some lawyers to determine. With memories of the 2008 economic climate and awareness of overhead, many lawyers struggle with turning away business. If there is a person with a problem, the lawyer says yes quickly without consideration of anything but the lawyer’s need for revenue or gratitude. If the scenario sounds familiar, consider for a minute, that you may be turning away a malpractice claim or an ethics complaint. Then saying no isn’t so hard, is it?

Lawyers have a duty of competence. If you aren’t competent, then you are supposed to get competent or associate with someone who is competent. You may find yourself in a situation where neither seems to be an option. I talked with a lawyer who was relatively young in law practice experience and did not have the level of experience, knowledge, or adequate capital to handle a medical malpractice case. A pro bono one! Happily, the lawyer was able to say no and get the case off to someone with the current skills and resources to help.

Lawyers have a duty to communicate with their clients. Sometimes, what needs to be communicated isn’t good news, such as communicating that upon review you have discovered that the case has no merit and not a chance of prevailing at court. One lawyer found this out after saying yes and engaging in a lot of puffery about being able to get the client money. Understandably, the lawyer was reluctant to say, no. No case. No ethical way to pursue this. That was a hard no. Likely, the lawyer toned down enthusiasm with the next potential case until investigating the facts revealed worth pursuing.

Lawyers have a duty to safeguard client property. Some clients  push for their check to be cut now. But if the funds for the client are not actually in the trust account, because the issuing bank of the check has not transmitted funds to the Lawyer Trust Account, then there are no client funds to be disbursed yet. You otherwise are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Best to say, no, the funds are not yet available and they will be disbursed to the client just as soon as they are available.

Lawyers have a duty to not take on a case, or if engaged to withdraw from representing a client, if the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client. What if the lawyer has represented the client for a long time and the client wants the lawyer to continue to finish up the matter? What if the lawyer cannot see or even concentrate because of the pain of treatment for terminal cancer? What if the lawyer has been admitted to a drug and alcohol treatment facility for detoxing or in a lock down for mental illness? The client may want the lawyer to continue but if the lawyer’s physical or mental condition render the lawyer incapacitated, then the lawyer must say no, not now. Hopefully the lawyer’s cell phone has been collected at the hospital door, but I have heard of clients calling and calling and calling, despite being told that the law office is temporarily closed.

What about those clients who are friends? How easy it is to get into a situation where you continue to do legal work for free because it is your friend. Some lawyers get themselves too busy helping friends, and friends of friends, with myriad legal matters that are beyond the lawyer’s ability to properly attend to with the competence and diligence required. You don’t get a pass on ethics violations or acts of malpractice just because it is a friend who is not paying for legal services. You undertake providing legal services, you need to provide the services ethically and without committing malpractice.

Comment 5 to ABA Model Rule 1.4 (Communication) states “…The guiding principle is  that the lawyer should fulfill reasonable client expectations for information consistent with the duty to act in the client’s best interests, and the client’s overall requirements as to the character of representation.” Make sure your clients are being given reasonable expectations. Hold the client’s best interest foremost in mind and you will do the right thing, even if the right thing is to say, “no.”

GeneralMentorsProfessionalismResources

Attorney at Law not Dabbler at Law

JEL23652-Blackford, Sheila P3 (2)  by Sheila Blackford   ©2010   There are many lawyers starting up their law practice these days. Some have become unemployed by larger firms downsizing as an economic survival tactic while others are newer lawyers who have decided to hedge their bet on getting an associate position. Whatever the push for opening up one’s own law practice, the attorney should take care to devote him- or her-self wholeheartedly to the clients who come seeking legal help. No dabbler’s in the law! You’d be horrified if a doctor set about to see a patient with a dabbler-in-medicine attitude. It is just as serious. What is dabbling? Though not a term of art, we all would agree that to dabble is to engage in something without the serious study and practice required of competent mastery.

Oregon Rule of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 Competence, based on the ABA Model Rules, states: A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Four Quadrants of Competence: Unconscious Incompetence is a dangerous place for dabblers
You may have heard of the Four Quadrants of Competence: Unconscious Incompetence, Conscious Incompetence, Conscious Competence, and Unconscious Competence. Passing the State Bar Exam indicates you have minimum competence. The Bar Exam can’t test all areas of law practice or assess how well a candidate can deal with a specific issue facing a client. Herein lays the danger: you may not know what you do not know. This is the quadrant known as Unconscious Incompetence. Something you can’t forget if you are working by yourself without supervision by a more experienced lawyer.

Cure for Dabbling
If you have a mentor helping you, call. If not, you may want to contact the Oregon State Bar Lawyer to Lawyer Program which allows you to check in with a more experienced lawyer. You can reach the Lawyer to Lawyer Program by calling the Bar at 503-431-6408. If you want to help lawyers by participating in the rewarding program, download an application here. The Lawyer to Lawyer Program is especially helpful as more experienced lawyers find themselves feeling the need to practice out of their practice area in order to make overhead and cost of living expenses.

It takes time to move from Unconscious Incompetence to Conscious Incompetence – where you are aware that you don’t know something and seek advice. It takes years of practice, getting advice and guidance from senior attorneys, attending substantive area CLEs and studying to develop the mastery of a practice area with Conscious Competence where you are aware that you know it and are tuned into the process of doing the details with competence.

As you may recall, the fourth Quadrant is Unconscious Competence, where you just act with competence without being consciously aware of the many steps. You may see unconsciously competent attorneys seemingly engaging effortlessly in cross-examination of a witness. They are not just a natural giant in the courtroom; they have honed their skills over decades of hard work. Many of these members of the Bar are willing to serve as mentors. Ask around for who are the giants in a practice area; call on them for some mentoring. They can help you prevent dabbling in the law.