I-spy-ware and more at TECHSHOW

Celebrating its 20th year, ABA TECHSHOW 2006 brought together an international audience to address the technological needs of lawyers, legal professionals and law firm technology experts. More than 60 educational sessions in 14 different tracks were held during the two-day expo in Chicago April 20-22. TECHSHOW is sponsored by the ABA's Law Practice Management Section, and is held in conjunction with the section's spring meeting.

At a session on "Information Security for Lawyers and Firms," David Ries of Pittsburgh-based Thorp, Reed and Armstrong and John Simek, vice president of Sensei Enterprises, first discussed the prevalence and scope of computer hacking and electronic intrusion. Such malfeasance includes file stealing, taking screenshots of passwords, controlling mouse activities and locking the toolbar tray. As if individuals can't get into enough trouble by themselves, there are companies that market the capability to transmit information without being detected, and even a publication that assists hackers titled "The Hacker Quarterly."

While there is no one solution – Simek and Ries counseled that the answer involves technology, people and procedure – software programs that can be used by others against you may also be useful to you. Spyware, Spy Doctor and Ad Aware are some of these programs.

Earlier in the conference, experts in e-discovery performed a mock hearing of a contested motion on the production of electronic evidence during "Oyez! Oyez! The Digital Discovery Showdown." In a hypothetical case, a company represented by George Paul of Lewis and Roca in Phoenix sought to show that a former employee, represented by solo practitioner Craig Ballof Montgomery, Texas, took confidential information when he left the company and used it to poach company clients. The former employee received an order not to alter the contents of his computer to preserve the integrity of any evidence on it. During the mock hearing, Paul and Ball each questioned expert witness Simek about forensic evidence on the computer and what conclusions, if any, it would support.

Paul argued that the former employee stole sensitive files from the company, deleted them with "file shredder" software after receiving the preservation order, and tried to make it appear that he used the shredder software before receiving the order. In his line of questioning, Paul showed how to uncover evidence of software that writes over files on a hard drive and detect whether a computer's internal clock was changed in an attempt to alter the apparent timeline of computer actions performed.

Ball countered that evidence of altering files on a hard drive in itself means nothing and claimed that his client's computer crashed, leading to loss of data. In his questioning, he showed that when e-discovery experts find shredder software, they cannot say what types of files were deleted or when. According to Ball, the mere presence of such software, combined with the difficulty of reconstructing a computer's chronology when the clock has been changed, does not prove that his client deleted files in defiance of the preservation order.

In another program, disaster continuity experts taught attendees how to protect their practices from disasters and minimize disruptions in client service. Drawing lessons from recent disasters like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, as well as less catastrophic problems like power outages, Tim Titus, director of disaster recovery services at Lexis Nexis, and Bruce Dorner, a private practitioner in Londonderry, N.H., emphasized the need for realistic planning in "Ground Zero: Are You Prepared for a Disaster Like Hurricane Katrina?"

Titus and Dorner explained that lawyers and law firms need to balance recovery time objectives – or how long they can tolerate disruptions to their practice; recovery point objectives – or how much data they can tolerate losing; and the amount of resources they realistically have available to prepare for potential disasters. Law firms should develop written disaster recovery plans that take into account the distinct needs caused by different disasters, set priorities, develop effective processes for disaster response, and harness appropriate technological resources that enable lawyers to get back to work as soon as possible.

An additional feature of TECHSHOW was the "60 Sites in 60 Minutes Hall of Fame," at which participants were able to view Web sites that may be of interest to lawyers. Links to sites discussed over the years are archived at the Hall of Fame Web site.

Back to top