Podcast Special Spotlight! The Tech-Savvy Lawyer is a guest on The Law Entrepreneur.

I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Neil Tyra for his podcast, The Law Entrepreneur. Typically, Neil talks to attorneys about how they run their law practice - from how they started, their office systems, marketing, computer hardware, etc. This not a “Tech Talk” episode per se. Neil was kind enough to allow us to go off-script. For the first half, we talk about what I do - Veterans Benefits Appeals, Military Medical/Physical, and Military Records Corrections. There is some tech talk at the end.

So, this may not necessarily be the best podcast about your “tech-savvy” blogger/podcaster host’s tech skills But, it may give you a little insight about your host. (I want to apologize to Neil and the listener if I sound a little choppy - clearly, something at my end - either it was me or my connection. 🤗 ). Overall, it was a great experience and fun to do!

Enjoy!

Click HERE to be direct to the episode on Neil’s podcast page.

First Amendments Rights versus Security – What side should an attorney be on when it comes to his firm's software.

Last week, I discussed educational bodies banning photos taken at school from being posted on social media – “Self- Awareness in the Wild, Wild West World of Zoom” (posted September 14, 2020).  There are inherent First Amendment rights issues:  Students’ ability to talk openly with the public about what they think about their school, classmates, and faculty versus other students’ ability to have open discussions of thoughts, popular or not, without the fear of public scrutiny and (verbal and physical) threats.  Now the Courts have provided us a new lens to discuss this balance.

CNN reports that a Federal Judge in California has stayed the Government’s download ban of WeChat in the United States.  WeChat is a popular social chat application (app) that allows people to talk around the world.  The Plaintiffs note that WeChat is one of the very few chat apps that the Chinese Government allows to be used in its country.  Plaintiffs argue that their ability to communicate with others in China will be significantly interfered with if the ban were to be allowed.  The Government contends that there is a security risk, and its use should not be allowed in the U.S.  The judge determined that at this point, the Government has not provide[d] enough evidence that it is narrowly tailored to resolve the US government's national security concerns with respect to the app.  So, the ban is stayed, for now.  But, the question that needs to be asked by attorneys is, what does this mean for us?

Obviously, if a software program is banned in the U.S., we cannot use it:  It’s illegal.  But our concerns go beyond just whether or not software, hardware, or cloud service is “banned” in the U.S.  We need to consider whether it is safe to use.  Rule 1.6(c) requires us to secure our clients’ confidential information.  Rule #1.1, Comment, #8, requires us to be up to date in our knowledge of technology and how we use it to practice law (or at least have third party assistance in its use).  The concern for attorneys should be when pieces of technology have glaring red flags that they may want to find another platform to do their clients’ work.  Otherwise, they may find themselves with a bar complaint or two?

MTC

Self-Awareness in the Wild, Wild West World of Zoom. 🤠

I came across an ABA article recently where Harvard Law School is arguing comments made in a classroom setting should not be placed on social media.  In this instance, a student was observed cleaning his gun during a zoom class.  A fellow student took a screen capture of the other and posted it on social media with commentary.  Harvard took offense and has created a policy to prevent future action - it reflects on some issues we should consider and a reminder of the ongoing big takeaway.

(Remember, this blog let alone this post is not offered to provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship between blogger and reader.)

First, whether we appear in court or a classroom, via video conference or in person, we are in "public".  There is no general video conference exception in the law (at least that I am aware of).

Second, there is no classroom-student-teacher "privilege".  There is an attorney-client and doctor-patient privilege.  But, I have not heard that "classroom-student-teacher 'privilege'" been proposed by the ABA.

Lastly, while schools may have more authority to inhibit speech on school grounds, facilities, and newspapers, this policy seems to really smack against the student-poster's First Amendment Rights to free speech.  Moreover, the posting of a fellow student cleaning his gun while in class has not been referenced to any deliberative discourse he made in class. Indeed, if he actually brought a gun to an in-person class, there would be an immediate safety concern.  Recall the GA student who was suspended (and later reversed) for posting a hallway shot of her school not following social distancing for COVID.  Assuming he/she did not use the school's social media channels to make the post, this could all be fair game.

I don't know the answers to this. Given the recent explosion of Zoom meetings in various context due to COVID, various laws related to it will need some time to catch up.  But there is a takeaway:  You need to be mindful of what you are doing during a video meeting, conference, hearing, etc.  Wear pants (be mindful of what you are wearing), don't bring weapons (be mindful of what you are doing), and be careful what can be viewed behind you (be mindful of your setting).  The ease of sending something on social media and the lack of editorial filters makes it a matter of several simple clicks for the world to know something you did not mean to share.  And the internet has a long memory.

MTC