Legal Marketing & PR

Wireless network rules

By Ed

<auer Brown writes about a new California Bar opinion that addresses wireless network use.

Quoting from their note, they say:

"Attorneys owe their clients a duty of confidentiality and competence. But when an attorney uses wireless Internet to communicate or access files, such as in an airport or other public location, is that communication over an unencrypted wireless network confidential? And is an attorney competent if he or she broadcasts client confidences, including employer confidences for in-house counsel, over an unencrypted network?

On January 20, 2011, the State Bar of California issued formal opinion no. 2010-179, addressing these questions. The opinion provides six factors that attorneys should consider when determining whether a particular technology is appropriate for their communication.

• The level of security afforded by that technology, including whether reasonable precautions may be taken to increase that level of security by, for example, encrypting email.
• The legal ramifications to a third party who intercepts, accesses or exceeds authorized use of the electronic information—that is, whether the form of communication is protected by law, like telephones and information stored on computers.
• The degree of sensitivity of the information—the more sensitive the information, the more security is appropriate.
• The possible impact on the client of an inadvertent disclosure of privileged or confidential information or work product—again, the more severe the consequences, the more security is appropriate.
• The urgency of the situation—if a message absolutely must be delivered immediately, security is a secondary consideration.
• The client's instructions and circumstances, such as access by others to the client's devices and communications—if, for example, a client has specified that email is not confidential enough, or that a particular kind of communication must be encrypted, the attorney must comply with those instructions."  See their note for more.

Full post as published by Law Biz Blog on February 11, 2011 (boomark / email).