Virtual Law Practice

Tag: emailing private legal issues

Metadata – NC Bar Proposed Ethics Opinion

A proposed ethics opinion by the NC State Bar covers the review and use of metadata. The proposed opinion dated January 22, 2009 states the following conclusion,

…a lawyer must use reasonable care to prevent the disclosure of confidential client information hidden in metadata when transmitting an electronic communication and a lawyer who receives an electronic communication from another party or another party’s lawyer must refrain from searching for and using confidential information found in the metadata embedded in the document.

The concern with metadata is that it may reveal privileged or confidential client information. With even basic computer skills, if you know how to look for metadata, it’s easy to obtain information about who wrote a document and when and to find detailed notes and information embedded in the document.  Attorneys must observe “reasonable care” to protect and preserve confidential information when they are using forms of electronic communication.

Likewise, when receiving an electronic communication, the opinion states that the attorney should not actively seek out metadata. This is in line with ethics opinions issued in recent years by the NY State Bar followed by other state bars and backed up by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility.  Visit the ABA’s Legal Tech Resource Center for a complete list of Metadata Ethics Opinions in each state.

How does metadata relate to a virtual law practice?

With a web-based virtual law practice, the attorney may be transmitting documents to clients and other attorneys in digital format by uploading documents for review or in allowing uploads to the virtual law office from another attorney or client. Depending on the file format being transferred online and the circumstances, metadata may be embedded in those files.

Accordingly, the virtual law practitioner should use metadata removal programs on their applications immediately before uploading them to the VLO.  Microsoft and even Open Office have metadata removal programs and techniques available for their software suites. Another option is to convert the files, such as Word, Excel, OpenOffice, and PowerPoint, to PDF before uploading them to the VLO. However, some online clients may not be able to edit the application on their computers as a PDF. So if the purpose of the transfer is to allow your clients to add anything to the document, then conversion to PDF may not be the best method of avoiding metadata. Another free option would be to convert the document to Rich Text Format (RTF) but this would most likely create layout and formatting problems and not be worth it.

There are metadata removal applications from a number of companies, including Workshare, Payne Consulting Group, Esquire Innovations, Inc. or iScrub. Depending on the virtual practice, an attorney may want to invest in an annual license for these programs just to avoid any malpractice risks.  Given the availability of these programs and methods, it is clearly the responsibility of the attorney to ensure that he or she has removed any metadata from a file before uploading it to the VLO and sharing it with clients and other attorneys.

How a virtual law practice may help prevent malpractice risks from metadata

If an attorney is required to use reasonable care to protect their client’s confidential, then should attorneys be using unencrypted email to communicate with clients and to transfer documents as attachments? The risks involved in using email are well-known and the attachments sent through email may contain metadata if not carefully cleaned.

Even more of a security risk are the use of public email accounts, such as those provided by gmail, hotmail and yahoo.  If there is a safer option that is easily available to transfer information securely, then doesn’t this proposed NC State Bar ethics opinion and others like it require that the attorney use “reasonable care” to seek out a safer method?

With a virtual law practice, the attorney can tell their client that the attorney is acting in the best interest of the client by refusing to communicate and transfer legal documents via email. The attorney can explain that using the web-based VLO is the safer way for the client to interact with the attorney and that even more communication tools are available to the parties through this method.

I have done this with my online clients and once they understand that the technology is no more complicated than email, and safer to protect their confidential legal matters, they are excited to have 24/7 access to their own homepage and legal case files. Rather than emailing me their private legal issues on unsecure email or attaching documents for me to review, they are able to post on the discussion thread to me their legal issues and all of it is contained in their case file for future reference. Likewise, if I’m working with another attorney on a case file, he or she may send me a private note using the same method which will show up on the case file rather than being sent through unencrypted email.

The risks of malpractice from metadata embedded in documents may be limited by the use the secure online communication inside a VLO. The attorney and client may conduct all of their legal work securely online. Rather than having multiple folders containing draft documents in email attachments, the client’s online case file after drafts have been completed may be limited to the single legal document controlled by the attorney who may then use a method of removing metadata when transferring it back and forth to the client or another attorney for review.

While a VLO may not remove all of the malpractice risks associated with metadata, it can help legal professionals comply with ethics opinions requiring “reasonable care” and to help them protect their client’s confidential information when using electronic communication.

March 16, 2009
State Bars Address Virtual Law Practice

Over the past month, I have spoken with several attorneys who want to open virtual law practices. They are approaching their state bars to get the go-ahead before hanging the virtual shingle. If you live in Texas, Maryland or Georgia, you may want to keep an eye out for opinions from your state bar authorities regarding virtual law practice.

The summer issue of the NC State Bar Journal published a new proposed formal ethics opinion regarding web-based management of client records. You can read the proposed opinion #5 on the NC State Bar website here.

The proposed ethics opinion examines two separate scenarios where the attorney’s clients are able to access confidential client records through a web-based system. The proposed opinion expands beyond the NC Bar’s previous 2006 ethics opinion regarding virtual law offices which focused more on non-secure email communication rather than web-based VLOs.

This new proposed opinion concludes that “client files may be stored on a website accessible by clients via the internet provided the confidentiality of all client information on the website is protected.” It also specifies that “[i]f the law firm will be contracting with a third party to maintain the web based management system, the law firm must ensure that the third party also employs measures which effectively minimize the risk that confidential information might be lost or disclosed.”

I have been forwarding the NC Bar’s opinion on VLOs and this new proposed opinion to attorneys in different states who are in the process of approaching their own state bars. If anyone would like to share the virtual law practice opinions of their state bars, I would love to post them on this blog as resources for other attorneys researching virtual law practice.

July 12, 2008
Notice & Understanding: Setting the Scope of Representation for Online Clients

While each state’s bar has different rules governing their attorneys, I suspect that many of the rules of professional conduct and ethics opinions are similar. The NC State Bar was one of the first to address virtual law practice. On January 20, 2006, the NC State Bar adopted the 2005 Formal Ethics Opinion 10 (Ethics Opinion 10) providing advice regarding virtual law practice and online unbundled legal services.

The comments in the opinion focus more on email communication and do not envision a web-based application that provides for detailed attorney/client interaction. However, it is still nice to have a standard opinion to work with.

The nature of unbundled legal services and the requirement that prospective clients understand the scope and nature of the legal representation being offered online was one of the topics addressed by the Ethics Opinion 10. The Bar stated that the virtual attorney must be careful to comply with Rule 1.2(c) of the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. This rule states “[a] lawyer may limit the scope of representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances.”

Accordingly, the attorney must continue to provide competent and thorough representation to the client regardless of the limited nature of the legal services being conducted. Rule 1.2(c) allows for the limited legal services to be provided to the public as long as the attorney complies with Rule 1.1 regarding competence of legal services provided.

A well-designed VLO provides notice to prospective clients as well as assurances that these notices have been read and accepted by the client. (See my Clickwrap Agreement post) Additionally, the scope of representation may be again communicated through a secure online message from attorney to the client and a traditional limited scope of representation agreement may be uploaded for the client to sign and return to the attorney, either by scanning and uploading to the VLO or by traditional mail or fax methods.

Before offering unbundled legal services, the virtual attorney has the responsibility to explain exactly what services will be provided at what cost to the client. A well-designed VLO operates with this specific process as the foundation for the transactions by requiring multiple steps where the client must read and acknowledge the terms and/or provide information to the attorney which lets the attorney know that the client has moved forward with accepting the scope of representation.

With each VLO, an attorney has the ability to tailor his or her virtual practice to encompass a variety of limited legal services, including the combination of using the VLO in conjunction with a full-service law office. Because each practice will differ in the areas of law practiced by the attorney(s) and by the chosen design and use of the VLOTech application, the responsibility to ensure compliance with Ethics Opinion 10 and Rule 1.2(c) of the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct will remain with the individual practitioner or law firm.

Here are a couple examples: An attorney whose practice centers on litigation may use a VLO to generate additional client revenue on the side by answering basic traffic ticket questions while maintaining a full-service litigation practice. The same attorney might use the VLOTech application to provide homepages to existing clients that he or she meets with in person and allow those clients to pay bills online, communicate in a more secure method than through email and basically to use the VLO as an amenity to the full-service firm.

As a different example, another attorney may decide to enter retirement from a full-service law firm by creating a VLO that handles only transactional legal services, such as drafting estate planning, contracts or setting up business entities for clients who do not want or need to meet with the attorney in-person. The VLO allows this attorney to work remotely or from home allowing him or her to ease into retirement or create a completely new online law practice that allows for greater work/life balance.

There are a variety of different situations where a VLO may be used to provide unbundled legal services and with each it is possible to provide quality legal services and comply with Rules 1.2(c) and 1.1 of the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.

Similar to a traditional law office, a virtual law attorney must use his or her judgment on a case by case basis when deciding whether he or she may competently and ethically handle a particular matter. If the client’s needs would be better suited if handled by a full-service attorney and the virtual law attorney does not provide this services, then it is his or her responsibility to refer the client out. This is no different from the responsibility of every attorney — whether practicing virtually or with a traditional, brick and mortar law office.

May 19, 2008

MENU