Each session brings new challenges for lawmakers. There are books to balance, laws to write and keeping constituents in the loop. Keeping it all together takes money, organization and paper.

“We spend a lot of money on printing and a lot of money on paper. This is one approach we could use to deal with it,” said Duncan Goss, the Statehouse Technology Expert.

Enter the iPad project.

Nice to see government embracing technology to be more efficient and cost-effective. And, of course, lowering the burden on the environment.

09:00–10:00 am –  Creating a paperless law practice

Creating a paperless practice involves picking the right scanner, and  then setting it up for the common, everyday scan jobs. Setting up a reliable file-naming, and storage system is critical, preferably one that allows file access via the Internet. There’s only one “right” scanner, and we’ll tell you what it is.

10:00–11:00 am – Maintaining a paperless practice

Maintaining a paperless practice is about dealing with digital documents. Mostly, it’s about getting proficient at using PDFs, and making notes and highlighting key information. Transitioning away from fax machines and printers is also important. So is creating a digital signature. We’ll show you how.

11:00–12 noon – Workflow & logistical issues

Some workflow issues are different for each firm, and it’s important to tweak those to suit your firm’s particular needs. There is no technology issue that can’t be overcome by someone with sufficient knowledge, but often the stumbling blocks are human nature and psychological. Come with questions; we’ve got answers.

No longer! If you have something that needs to go out by certified mail point your web browser to SimpleCertifiedMail.com. Once there you simply enter the recipient’s address into an online form. Then you can print a certified mail label with postage.

The best part? You get Proof of Acceptance without having to visit the Post Office, because the proof is delivered electronically. And if you have a lot of certified letters to send you’ll really appreciate their robust reporting tools.

If you have a laptop, or two, in your household, the odds are that you have more than one battery charger. So how do you know which one is yours? Okay, you probably don’t get tripped up in the home front.

But if you travel with your laptop, and if you give presentations or have opportunities to forget your laptop charger, then today’s tip will be a life saver.  When you get a new laptop, the first thing you should do is get your Dymo labeler (you do have a Dymo labeler, right?). Then you make a label for your laptop charger that has your name and cellphone number.

Once you get your Dymo labeler you’ll find lots of things that can benefit from labeling: e.g. ethernet cords and other connection cables, devices and so on. The key is to plan for the future, and to plan for things to go wrong in the future.

I started scanning in the year 2000, and back then it was hard to find a simple scanner that worked great for not much money. I experienced firsthand the frustration of trying to get a scanner that would work easily and reliably. About 7 years ago I found the first model that Fujitsu put out, and after that I’ve stopped looking.

The Fujitsu has a long history of being reliable, easy-to-use, and affordable. It’s maybe the only Scanner I know that comes with a full version of Acrobat (Standard on Windows, and Professional for Mac); Acrobat is indispensable in working with PDFs, so if I pay $440 for the Fujitsu 1500 I feel like I’m really only paying $200 because I get Adobe Acrobat too.

None of the other scanners I’ve come across offer the Acrobat package, so they’re actually not any cheaper than the Fujitsu. And are they as reliable? Onlyl time will tell. The Fujitsu has been around for a long time and had the long history of reliability. I don’t have time to experiment with products that may have problems, when I’ve found one that will do everything I need for a very reasonable price.

If you want the PC version get the Fujitsu ScanSnap 1500; if you have a Mac get the ScanSnap 1500M. Click on one of those links and then read the Amazon reviews if you want confirmation about how many people agree with me.

Update (Nov. 2011): Sam Glover has a great write-up of what’s wrong with the Neat Receipts Scanner, which is one that many people keep asking about. His review explains why you want to stay away from that scanner. Again, there is only one scanner. Sam’s review confirms that the Fujitsu is the one you want.

If you’ve not been able to create a digital signature up to now, for lack of a scanner or the software to use it, you’re now in luck. Assuming, of course, that you have a Mac with an iSight camera and have upgraded to Lion.

I started scanning in the year 2000, and back then it was hard to find a simple scanner that worked great for not much money. I experienced firsthand the frustration of trying to get a scanner that would work easily and reliably. About 7 years ago I found the first model that Fujitsu put out, and after that I’ve stopped looking.

The Fujitsu has a long history of being reliable, easy-to-use, and affordable. It’s maybe the only Scanner I know that comes with a full version of Acrobat (Standard on Windows, and Professional for Mac); Acrobat is indispensable in working with PDFs, so if I pay $440 for the Fujitsu 1500 I feel like I’m really only paying $200 because I get Adobe Acrobat too.

None of the other scanners I’ve come across offer the Acrobat package, so they’re actually not any cheaper than the Fujitsu. And are they as reliable? Onlyl time will tell. The Fujitsu has been around for a long time and had the long history of reliability. I don’t have time to experiment with products that may have problems, when I’ve found one that will do everything I need for a very reasonable price.

If you want the PC version get the Fujitsu ScanSnap 1500; if you have a Mac get the ScanSnap 1500M. Click on one of those links and then read the Amazon reviews if you want confirmation about how many people agree with me.

Source: PDF for Lawyers

The key questions presented in Ethics Opinion 842 were these:

May a lawyer use an online system to store a client’s confidential information without violating the duty of confidentiality or any other duty? If so, what steps should the lawyer take to ensure that the information is sufficiently secure?

The New York opinion concludes that lawyers may use online storage provided that certain steps are taken to ensure that the information is adequately protected. First of all, the opinion repeatedly cautions that lawyers who adopt online storage methods must “periodically review security measures as technology advances over time….” In other words, you can’t just adopt an online storage system that is reasonable to use today and then stop paying attention to how technology is changing.

Paying attention to technological advances is certainly of critical importance, regardless of purely ethical considerations. But now we see, perhaps for the first time, a prominent legal group urging that the need to pay attention to technological changes is an ethical obligation. Granted, it’s an obligation that only kicks in if you use online storage (at least if you’re in New York and being guided by this opinion). But one can easily see this reasonable admonition being applied in other contexts where lawyers use technology.

So to repeat the point for emphasis: you can’t just adopt a new technology, set it up, and then stop paying attention to how advances in technology affect your ability to protect clients information.

The New York opinion offers four specific considerations that should guide lawyers who use online storage services. The opinion says that lawyers should consider the following steps:

(1) Ensuring that the online data storage provider has an enforceable obligation to preserve confidentiality and security, and that the provider will notify the lawyer if served with process requiring the production of client information;
(2) Investigating the online data storage provider’s security measures, policies, recoverability methods, and other procedures to determine if they are adequate under the circumstances;
(3) Employing available technology to guard against reasonably foreseeable attempts to infiltrate the data that is stored; and/or
(4) Investigating the storage provider’s ability to purge and wipe any copies of the data, and to move the data to a different host, if the lawyer becomes dissatisfied with the storage provider or for other reasons changes storage providers.

Let me address each of these in turn, explaining in ordinary terms what they seem to mean for using services such as SugarSync or DropBox.

First, services such as SugarSync and DropBox have as much interest as anyone in keeping your data private. As a practical matter, if their services were easily hacked into and the information stored there was easily compromised their ability business customers (and regular customers too) would immediately be impaired. Of course, you should carefully review the terms of service of such sites to make sure that you (1) understand what rights and liabilities you might have, and (2) are aware of potential perils.

You can be sure that the terms of service will be written to the benefit of the online provider for the most part.  They will not accept liability for compromised security that results from you (1) having an inherently insecure password system, (2) giving your password to someone you shouldn’t, or (3) accessing your account from an insecure location such as a WiFi hotspot at a coffee shop, where there is limited security. These three issues are the most likely way that your client’s data would be compromised and all three of these scenarios are things that you should be responsible for.

You also want to make sure that you can get your data down from the online provider if they go out of business or if you change hosts.  Both SugarSync and DropBox are easy to download your data from, so make sure you use a similar provider. With SugarSync and DropBox you can also use their services to synchronize across multiple computers. Then you essentially have your data in two or more places at all times, and so you aren’t completely dependent on them to get copies of your data if you should lose it on one computer. Those services will, of course, purge your data once you leave because they have no interest in clogging their servers with the data of former clients who aren’t paying them anymore.

A key obligation is the obligation to be informed about what the terms governing your relationship with the online provider. Lawyers are not going to get off the hook by arguing that they didn’t understand what their obligations were, and what limitations were placed upon their service by the online provider. Some lawyers will shudder at the thought that their online provider might get a subpoena and turn over confidential client information. For me this is not a likely scenario. But, according to the NY Ethics opinion, it’s my obligation to make sure I know what SugarSync or DropBox would do if they got such a request. An online storage provider such as SugarSync or DropBox should, at a minimum, notify me that such a request has been issued and not simply turn over the information without giving me an opportunity to legally challenge such the request.

The New York opinion could easily be interpreted to apply to client communications such as those that are hosted by web-based email providers such as Google. After all, web-based email is stored online.

So what’s a nervous lawyer to do? Avoid online storage altogether? I imagine that many lawyers will, until one day it becomes such an impediment to their practice that they find it too difficult to avoid. Federal appellate judge Alex Kozinski addressed this concern in the context of a criminal case where the government had obtained too much electronic information and then improperly used that information.

The advent of fast, cheap networking has made it possible to store information at remote third-party locations, where it is intermingled with that of other users. For example, many people no longer keep their email primarily on their personal computer, and instead use a web-based email provider, which stores their messages along with billions of messages from and to millions of other people. Similar services exist for photographs, slide shows, computer code, and many other types of data. As a result, people now have personal data that are stored with that of innumerable strangers. Seizure of, for example, Google’s email servers to look for a few incriminating messages could jeopardize the privacy of millions.

It’s no answer to suggest…that people can avoid these hazards by not storing their data electronically. To begin with, the choice about how information is stored is often made by someone other than the individuals whose privacy would be invaded by the search. Most people have no idea whether their doctor, lawyer or accountant maintains records in paper or electronic format, whether they are stored on the premises or on a server farm in Rancho Cucamonga, whether they are commingled with those of many other professionals or kept entirely separate.

US v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, 579 F.3d 959, 1005 (9th Cir. 2009). (emphasis added)

Judge Kozinski’s observations should be a guidepost for lawyers who deal with electronically storaed information, and for bar associations that create ethical rules regarding online storage. The reality is that online storage is beneficial to everyone in many ways. Yes there are perils, and lawyers should be mindful of them and minimize the risks in sensible ways. But avoiding online storage altogether is not likely to be a practical or sensible option in many cases.