Etiquette/Ethics Tip: In e-mail, don't hit "Reply All"!

Don’t be lazy with your e-mail correspondences!

Human nature tends to be a little lazy, especially when it comes to taking simple steps instead of us "thinking" before we act. It's easy to see an e-mail with many cc:ed recipients, and instead of scrutinizing who these parties are, we just hit "Reply All." The problem is we may not be making just a faux pas but a bar complaint as well!

Depending on your practice, you may be cc:ing your client to help keep him or her reasonably informed. Likewise, your opposing party may be doing the same with their clients. 

But in doing so, it may not give you the right to e-mail, indirectly, your opposing party.  In other words, your response to the opposing counsel's e-mail probably should not include her or her client(s).

Granted, Attorneys like to keep control of the information flowing through them, not concurrently with them. And you want your opposing counsel to show you the same courtesy as you would expect him or her to do with you. Plus, failing to do so could lead to a bar complaint!

ABA Ethics Model Rule 4.2, Communication with Person Represented by Counsel, provides:

Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.

So depending on your state rules, a little bit of laziness could lead to a bar complaint.

Rule of thumb, don't hit "Reply All." 

Do Lawyers & Law Firms need Employee Monitoring Software for Remote Employees - Even if it’s reliable is it worth it?

Last week, the New York Times (NYT) came out with an article about employers remotely monitoring their employee computers. The COVID-19 Pandemic has increased the "shift" from on-site work to work from home. And employers understandably want to make sure they are getting the same bang for their buck – that is, are their employees working just as hard at home as they do at the office?

The NYT's article highlights an employee-monitoring program made by Hubstaff. The employee installs the program onto their "work" computer (and we are going to come back to about what is a "work" computer a little later). The employer is then allowed to monitor the employee's computer use. The program works for the most part – the employer is allowed to see much of what the employee is doing throughout the day. But to summarize the intrusion level, the supervisor for Adam Satariano, the author of the NYT article, says it best, "ick."

"Ick" in the sense that Adam's supervisor was able to see an internet workout class Adam had been a participant. Granted, Adam forgot to log out of the program before he moved on for the day. Monitoring software may "o.k." for large firms who can afford to provide each of their employees with an individual laptop. But for those of us with limited resources, e.g., solos and small practitioners, we rely on our staff (or contractors) to have their own computer. And if I were one of those "employees," I would not be letting my boss put a monitoring program on my personal computer. But this type of intrusion does not reflect that there is a more significant problem at hand.

Apparently, when employers require their staff to use this type of tracking software, their "productivity" goes up! But "productivity" in the legal field cannot be solely defined upon computer use. Sure, research, typing documents, and reading and sending e-mailing are done on the computer. But, you are not always on the computer during meetings, traveling to and from those meetings, or traveling to or appearing in court. And what about courts and other venues that don't allow electronic devices. What if, GASP, you are reading a paper copy of a book? Or work better handwriting your thoughts? Or better yet, have a bunch of programs running and not actually working! The problem of using a tracking program in "law practice" is that it does not address the most crucial question: Is your staff actually practicing law?

I think lawyers are more concerned with quality work and meeting deadlines. These programs can only monitor quantity. It cannot track the "quality" of the employee's work product. And quite frankly, if you cannot rely on your staff to meet deadlines with quality work, no employee monitoring software program is going provide you with the protection you will need from a bar complaint resulting from shoddy work.

First Day Thoughts at ABA Techshow 2020

I'm attending my second ABA Techshow this year!

Its great being around people interested in better-utilizing technology in their practice. On my first day, I attended several sessions on some core concepts using pdfs, automating workflows, and better marketing online. 

These sessions have been perfect for the new and moderate tech users. As a more advanced computer user, I would have appreciated a more granular (step-by-step) approach. But, I can confidently say that from each session, I have learned at least one new thing that will individually enhance my practice. I have a feeling that regardless of your technology skills are you can learn something - perhaps at ABA Techshow 2021!