1. Tom Mighell’s iPad for Lawyers in One Hour for Lawyers (available: Apple iBook store). This is great for novice iPad users because it literally walks you through the basics in about one hour.
2. David Sparks’ iPad at Work (available Apple iBook store). Not written specifically for lawyers, per se. But David Sparks is a lawyer and he used the iPad in his work, so all of his recommendations apply to lawyers. This is a must have book for anyone who owns an iPad.

For updated information on what legal apps to get (and other iPad and iPhone related news) you should subscribe to the email version of Jeff Richardson’s iPhoneJD blog. Jeff practices commercial litigation in a large firm, and started his blog to discuss iPhone stuff, but everything he says (for the most part) is applicable to iPads. This is how you learn about what legal-specific apps are useful.

Josh Barrett’s Tablet Legal is a good site too. As he said in a recent post, most lawyers will want at least the following two apps:

1. PDF Expert, and
2. DropBox

I’d add GoodReader as the number one app, and then whatever legal apps are relevant to your law practice (Tom Mighell’s book will give you a good running start on those kinds of apps).

The first two relate paragraphs to retaining files, the first to make it clear that I don’t keep any unnecessary paper (which is most paper). The second is about digital signatures, to make it perfectly clear that no ‘wet ink’ signature will be needed to prove the client agreement.

I find that these two provisions set the proper tone (e.g. I’m serious about not keeping paper). I always call attention to these provisions, and have found that most clients express admiration for my ability to work without relying on paper. Even if you’re not yet paperless, I’d update your engagement letter to allow for paperless storage as opposed to paper, so that when you do start scanning you won’t be worried about whether you have to keep paper files.

Retention of Files
My policy is to scan and otherwise digitize all file materials, and to use and retain as little paper as possible. I therefore ask that if you, for some reason, require that paper files be kept that you notify me of that requirement at the outset (i.e. before you sign this agreement) so that I decide whether to accept representation of you in this matter.

After my representation is over I will gladly provide you with a CD-ROM or other digital storage device that contains all of your information in digital form. No guarantees are made that client files will be retained for more than 3 years after the representation is terminated. Again, I keep no paper except for documents that absolutely require paper originals (e.g. promissory notes and wills).

Electronic Signatures and Copies
All parties to this agreement agree that a digital signature shall be effective to prove each party’s agreement to the terms of this document. Furthermore, the parties agree that the terms of this Agreement may be proved through an electronic facsimile, including a scanned electronic copy in Portable Document Format (“PDF”) or other digital format, and that no “original” hard-copy document shall be retained to prove the terms of this Agreement.

Below are ethics opinions from four different entities that provide a sense of how the ethical contours are developing for attorneys who seek social media evidence.

San Diego County Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2011-2
Says that ethics rules “rules bar an attorney from making an ex-parte friend request of a represented party. An attorney’s ex parte communication to a represented party intended to elicit information about the subject matter of the representation is impermissible no matter what words are used in the communication and no matter how that communication is transmitted to the represented party.”

New York City Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 2010-02
Addresses the narrow question of whether a lawyer, acting either alone or through an agent such as a private investigator, may resort to trickery via the Internet to gain access to an otherwise secure social networking page and the potentially helpful information it holds. In particular, focused on an attorney’s direct or indirect use of affirmatively “deceptive” behavior to “friend” potential witnesses.
Concludes: “A lawyer may not attempt to gain access to a social networking website under false pretenses, either directly or through an agent.”

Key observations from the opinion:

• “it may be easier to deceive an individual in the virtual world than in the real world.”
• “it does not matter whether the lawyer employs an agent, such as an investigator, to engage in the ruse.”

New York State Bar Ethics Opinion #843
Addresses a “lawyer’s access to public pages of another party’s social networking site for the purpose of gathering information for client in pending litigation.” Cites rules 4.1; 4.2; 4.3; 5.3(b)(1); 8.4(c).
Concludes: “A lawyer who represents a client in a pending litigation, and who has access to the Facebook or MySpace network used by another party in litigation, may access and review the public social network pages of that party to search for potential impeachment material. As long as the lawyer does not “friend” the other party or direct a third person to do so, accessing the social network pages of the party will not violate Rule 8.4 (prohibiting deceptive or misleading conduct), Rule 4.1 (prohibiting false statements of fact or law), or Rule 5.3(b)(1) (imposing responsibility on lawyers for unethical conduct by nonlawyers acting at their direction).”

Key observations from the opinion:

• Cites Philadelphia opinion and distinguishes facts. (NYC case involved party’s info; Philadelphia was witness info)
• Says “Facebook and MySpace are examples of external social networks that are available to all web users.” (Not exactly true for Facebook)

Philadelphia Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2009-02
The first opinion on ethics of accessing social media. Attorney wanted to have his paralegal “friend” an adverse witness, whom he learned in deposition was using Facebook and MySpace. Question was: could the attorney have his paralegal do the friending so that witness wouldn’t realize that the deposing attorney was trying to get incriminating evidence. Bar Association said, NO. Attorney can’t engage in deception directly, or through a proxy.

It took 30 seconds to complete this transaction. Having a website with a domain name that ends in .net instead of .com didn’t help. But the encounter made me wonder how many people out there believe that you need to know the exact name of a website in order to find it?

When I first started blogging my website had a URL something like www.radio.weblog/0448434234. I couldn’t ever remember the URL and no one would ever spend time trying to type that into a browser address bar. But the blog was called “ernie the attorney” and that’s how I told people to find it. They’d ask “is that the URL?” And I’d say, “no, that’s the ‘Google URL.’” Meaning, of course, if those are the words that you give to Google.

Google can find anything that has a decent web profile. The words that you use to find them are the Google URL. So think about that, and don’t be so worried about the exact spelling of the ‘correct URL.’