ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Solo Practice Blogs -> Build A Solo Practice, LLC

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Solo Practice

: Build A Solo Practice, LLC

"Tip of the Week" (Mid Week) - Are You Removing Confidential or Damaging MetaData?

ADVERTISEMENTS

On the heels of recent ethics opinions noted here by Robert Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch:

Another Ethics Ruling on Metadata

Is it ethical to search for metadata in a document you receive from opposing counsel? As we've reported here in the past, the American Bar Association says yes but the New York County Lawyers' Association says no. Maryland and the District of Columbia have also sided with the ABA on the issue, while Arizona, Alabama and Florida agree with New York. Now, the Ethics Committee of the Colorado Bar Association has weighed in with a formal opinion on review of metadata and adopted the ABA's view. It says that a lawyer may ethically review a document for metadata. If, however, the lawyer discovers confidential information within the metadata, the lawyer should assume it is there inadvertently and immediately contact the sender.

Once the Receiving Lawyer has notified the Sending Lawyer, the lawyers may, as a matter of professionalism, discuss whether a waiver of privilege or confidentiality has occurred.  In some instances, the lawyers may be able to agree on how to handle the matter.  If this is not possible, then the Sending Lawyer or the Receiving Lawyer may seek a determination from a court or other tribunal as to the proper disposition of the electronic documents or files, based on the substantive law of waiver.

Notably, the Colorado ethics panel says that the states that have come out against review of metadata based their opinions "on incorrect factual premises regarding the nature of metadata." Those incorrect premises, it explains, are that all metadata are necessarily confidential and that viewing metadata is surreptitious. The opinion also emphasizes that the sending lawyer has a duty of reasonable care to be informed about the nature of metadata and the steps that should be taken to remove it.

[Hat tip to Legalethics.com.]

Just install proper software which will remove it for $80.00 (or use another company) and hopefully avoid the issue completely.  This is by far the most responsible approach to this potentially serious problem.

Used by more than two million people worldwide, the Metadata Assistant is the leading metadata removal tool available on the market today. The only metadata removal tool to be written about on the cover of The Wall Street Journal, the Metadata Assistant has won several "shoot outs" in product comparison tests and is deployed in law firms, corporations and government agencies around the world. Simply put, we remove more metadata than any other product out there.

If you know of another product which is better, please share.  If you know of a product which works with Mac, please let us know.

Full post as published by Build A Solo Practice, LLC on June 18, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0142 secs (new cache)