The kerfuffle over the U.S. government's alleged spying on its own citizens by accessing their computers, e-mails and other electronic media use has caused no small amount of talk among legal ethics folks. I am not sure what the end of it all will be, but there will be some fallout. Let's look at the rules.
For instance, Rule 1.1, dealing with competence, now requires a lawyer to be technologically competent was well as know and appreciate the substantive law they are dealing with. So I guess the electronic equivalents of the "dog-ate-my-homework" defense —"I lost the info on the Internet"; "I was hacked"; or "I dropped the thumb drive at the mall while looking for my keys" — are not going to work anymore.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
