Thursday, August 7, 2014

Risk News & Updates (Screening, Conflicts & Security)


First, from Bill Frievogel comes another Canadian pro-ethical screening/information barrier decision: Province of Ontario v. Chartis Ins. Co. of Canada, 2014 ONSC 4221 (Ont. Super. Ct. July 16, 2014) --
  • "We are simplifying the history somewhat, but the essentials for this audience are this: Lawyer worked at Firm A to some considerable extent on cases for the Province against InsCo. Lawyer wound up at Firm B, which is representing InsCo against the Province in those same cases. Firm B erected in advance a screen essentially in compliance with ethics rules of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Nevertheless, the Province moved to disqualify Firm B. In this opinion the court denied the motion, finding that the screen was satisfactory. Excellent discussion of the judicial history of screening in Canada."

Next, from James Tallon, litigation partner at Shearman & Sterling, comes an interesting article: "Ethics Corner: When Conflicts Rules Conflict" --
  • "Consider the following hypothetical: Lawyer A is admitted to practice in New York and resident in his firm's New York office. Currently, A represents Del Corp., a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York City, as borrower negotiating a significant credit facility from a bank syndicate. Lawyer B is A's partner; B is admitted as a solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales and is resident in the London office of the firm in which A and B are partners. Euro Corp., a long-time client of B, has asked her to represent it in connection with the purchase of Del Corp.'s wholly-owned English subsidiary. B would like C, who also is admitted in New York, but resident in the firm's London office, to work on the transaction. Can B take on the engagement for Euro Corp.? If so, can C work on the deal?"

Finally, from Bill Caraher, CIO at von Briesen & Roper, comes: "Different Data, Different Security" --
  • "'Privacy' and 'security' are two terms taken very seriously in law firms. When it comes to e-discovery and client-matter data, privacy and security are paramount. But, in practice, these two types of data are often treated differently."
  • "Let’s ask this again: Why is the cloud acceptable for one type of law firm data but not the other? It comes down to control and the agreement between parties. When a firm’s DMS data are outside the control and watch of senior management and IT, people get nervous. You also have cloud providers that run shared infrastructure and shared storage between multiple clients."

No comments:

Post a Comment