BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Ethics

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, December 10, 2020

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

  • An excellent opportunity to earn Ethics CLE credits. Note: BARBRI cannot guarantee that this course will be approved for ethics credits in all states. To confirm, please contact our CLE department at pdservice@barbri.com.

$197.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will guide litigators and other counsel through how the digital practice of law affects certain ethical duties and how they can comply with those duties. The program will quickly move beyond technology competence in Model Rule of Professional Responsibility (MR) 1.1, confidentiality (MR 1.6), and data security to address how digital operations impact MR 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 7.1 and the appropriate responses and mitigations.

Faculty

Helen Geib
Of Counsel
Hoover Hull Turner, LLP

Ms. Geib is Of Counsel for Hoover Hull Turner LLP. Her deep knowledge of eDiscovery law and practice was gained over many years of experience as a litigator and eDiscovery consultant. Ms. Geib has published numerous articles on topics in eDiscovery and legal technology for a wide variety of publications. In 2019, she was recognized as eDiscovery Professional of the Year by the Indianapolis Bar Association. Ms. Geib obtained her JD, summa cum laude, from The John Marshall Law School and is a member of the bar of the State of Indiana and the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. She serves on the board of the Women in eDiscovery Indianapolis chapter, which she launched in 2017.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Molly Harkins
Attorney
Hoover Hull Turner, LLP

Ms. Harkins is an associate attorney at Hoover Hull Turner LLP in Indianapolis where she assists clients with a wide range of commercial litigation and employment defense matters. She received her JD, magna cum laude, from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Ms. Harkins is a member of the bar of the State of Indiana and the US District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of Indiana.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

The legal ethics requirement of competence in "relevant technology" goes beyond securing email, cloud computing, and avoiding unsecured wi-fi.

Since most discovery is e-discovery, making accurate representations about evidence and the case to the client, opposing counsel (MR 3.4), or the court (MR 3.3) requires knowledge of ESI types and sources and production format. Counsel must also grasp the significance of proportionality factors like data volume, cost, and burden of production. These duties are front and center in discovery conferences, requests, and related motions.

Attorneys directing others' work must comply with MR 5.1 and 5.3 to ensure reasonable processes are in place and that all lawyers and staff comply with their legal ethics duties. Failure in this area can result in inadequate discovery, inefficiencies, client dissatisfaction, and sanctions.

Listen as our experienced panel explores how the duties of candor, fairness, and supervision intersect with technology competence compliance.
The panel will explain how technology impacts lawyers' ethical duties and offer strategies for compliance.

Outline

  1. Overview of MR 1.1 regarding technology
  2. Technology and the duty of candor to the court (MR 3.3)
  3. Technology and the duty of fairness to others (MR 3.4)
  4. Technology and the duties of supervision (MR 5.1 and 5.3)
  5. Technology and misrepresentation of legal services (MR 7.1)

Benefits

The panel will review these and other important issues:

  • What is the duty of technology competence?
  • What level of understanding is required and how is it attained?
  • When do motions to expand or limit discovery violate the duty of candor to the court?
  • What is required to supervise eDiscovery staff and vendors under MR 5.2?