Wednesday, July 17, 2013
This brief survey is designed to better understand the approaches firms are taking to achieve compliance by the September 23rd enforcement deadline. Answers will be collected for the next two weeks, and participants will receive a copy of the analysis report shortly thereafter.
We've reached out directly to key stakeholders at Risk Roundtable participant firms and other organizations. If you have not received an invitation and would like to participate, please send a message to email@example.com.
Posted by Dan at 6:48 AM
Monday, July 15, 2013
Said Hinshaw Assistant General Counsel Steve Puiszis:
- "As our firm advises multiple peer law firms on issues relating to professional responsibility and risk management, we considered it imperative to focus our own HIPAA compliance efforts to maintain the excellent standard of care we deliver to our clients. IntApp Wall Builder and IntApp Activity Tracker play a central role in our HIPAA compliance strategy, as technical controls that enable us to secure and track matters containing PHI without disrupting lawyer productivity or collaboration."
- "IntApp Activity Tracker will not only enable our firm to address the audit requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule, but also alert my team of any abnormal access to sensitive documents that may signal a pending lateral lawyer departure. Activity Tracker is a must have for law firms looking to mitigate information risk and verify compliance with access policies and procedures."
Pat Archbold, Head of IntApp's Risk Practice Group noted:
- "We’re delighted to highlight Hinshaw’s leadership in risk management and compliance. Law firms working to address the new HIPAA requirements can look to Hinshaw as a standard for effective compliance."
- "We invite any firm interested in learning more to visit this link to learn more about how we assist with HIPAA compliance for law firms, and to watch our recorded panel webinar on compliance requirements and strategies."
Posted by Dan at 6:47 AM
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Simon has written two articles on the topic, offering excellent background and analysis. See first: "Bright Line Rule Remains the Standard for Canadian Conflicts of Interest Law" --
- The case reopened the “bright-line rule” and the so-called “professional litigant exception, ” formulated by former Justice Ian Binnie in R. v. Neil, and re-affirmed in Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc. It provides:
… a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client — even if the two mandates are unrelated — unless both clients consent after receiving full disclosure (and preferably independent legal advice), and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other. (Neil, para. 29);
- "The new Supreme Court decision holds that the McKercher firm crossed the bright line, that it breached both its duties of commitment and candour. It remits the case back to the Court of Queen's Bench to determine whether disqualification was an appropriate remedy."
Posted by Dan at 9:26 AM