That’s the title of my Slaw post from today.  It reads as follows:

Most of us realize that merely deleting a file doesn’t really remove it from the hard drive or other storage media it resides on.  (For some background on this issue see a post I wrote a while back.)

Given how we use digital devices today – both for work and personal use – we can’t just abandon this issue to our firm IT staff.  Our personal computers at home, our phones, copiers, memory sticks and ipads all probably contain our own personal information, or personal or confidential information of others.  We need to manage that not only while we use those tools – but when we dispose of them as well.   Pulverizing them into dust – aka destruction to the smithereens level – is not always an option.

This Microsoft article is worth a read, as it explains the issue, has some suggestions to reduce the risks, and links to some disk erasing tools.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.   It reads as follows.

Following my customer service post last week, I had an experience on the weekend where store clerks were so intrusive that it was annoying.  So much so that it makes me wonder if I want to go back to that store again.  It’s a reminder that while we need to be attentive to customer / client needs, it’s possible to cross the line from good service to annoying and creepy.  And it’s possible to try too hard to sell our services.

I went into a new store, and was immediately asked by a greeter if they could direct me to something.  He sent me in the right direction, where I was met by a sales clerk.  The sales clerk helped me decide between some options (a wireless N router in case you are wondering).  Once I had it in my hand, he asked if there was anything else he could help me with.  I said no – thanked him for his help – and that I might just look at a couple other boxes on the shelf to satisfy myself that I made the right choice.

So far, so good – but that’s when it fell off the rails.  

He started to try to sell me an anti-virus product, but continued even after I said I was happy with my current anti-virus product.   He told me he had to stay with me and walk me to the cash register.  I asked if he was on commission (thinking he wanted to make sure he got credit for the sale)  - he said no.  I asked why he had to do that – he said he didn’t know – it was a management rule.    Frankly, it felt like I was being stalked or mistrusted.  (I briefly considered wasting his time on a tour of the store to see how long he would stick with me – but I didn’t have time for that myself.)

So he indeed walked with me right to the cashier and stood there until I paid and walked out the door.

And to continue the irritation, the cashier asked for my name and address.  I asked why – he said if I lost my receipt and had to return it, they would have a record of the purchase.  I wasn’t satisfied with that answer, and saw no advantage to being in their database, so I politely declined.  While he didn’t say anything, that of course flustered and miffed the cashier.

So give our clients the attention they deserve, and make efforts to sell our services where appropriate to clients and potential clients – but don’t cross the line into pester and peeve territory.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows:

Customer service is something that many different types of service providers talk about.  But it often fails in execution.  While many customer service concepts should be obvious, it is often not done well.  Sometimes its not easy when you are the one providing the service to see things from the customer / client’s perspective. 

How many of us, for example, get frustrated at a repair service that says they will arrive at your house sometime on Tuesday.

Or when someone promises to show up at 2:00, and its now 2:30, and you have heard nothing.

Or going for a doctor’s appointment at 9:00, but not getting to see him/her until 9:45.  Then leaving the appointment feeling that the doctor has rushed you through and not really listened.

So at the risk of stating the obvious, here’s some things to think about when we deliver legal services.

Set realistic times for meetings and delivery dates.  Better to under promise and over deliver than be late or over a cost estimate.  And if for some reason you are going to be late for a meeting or a delivery date, contact the client ahead of time and explain. (Just don’t make a habit of it.)

When promising delivery dates and setting fees, remember that we tend to overestimate the time it will take to do things we don’t like / want to do, and underestimate the time it will take to do things we like / want to do.

Make sure you listen to and understand the client’s concerns.  It may be routine to us, but new to them.

Make the service and documentation fit the need.  Simple is better in most cases. Don’t provide a complex solution or lengthy documentation for matters that don’t require it.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

There has been a lot of press over the latest countries that don’t want Blackberries in their country unless they can get access to monitor user communications.  See, for example, the Washington Post, Techdirt, Engadget.

RIM designed Blackberry communications so they would be secure, in a way that RIM itself can’t even access them.  That’s a great feature that makes privacy advocates, corporate users, and individual users very happy. 

But it also makes some governments very unhappy – particularly those who believe they need to spy on communications.   Some to the extent that they threaten to ban use in their countries unless they get the access they want.   Those countries feel the need to monitor for illegal activity, or for anti-government sentiment that we in North America would consider basic free speech.   And the threat to ban irks governments like the US, because it affects US government officials and users that travel to those countries, and offends their views of free speech and individual empowerment.  The attitude of most of us in North America is that those governments should just lighten up and stop trying to suppress or control the thoughts and activities of people.

But we can’t forget that this is all a matter of degree.   US and Canada ”lawful access” advocates want ways for law enforcement to access electronic communications to fight criminals and terrorists, and have similar concerns about encryption that modern communications technology provides.  Law enforcement has always been able to do things like wiretaps with judicial oversight that requires some standard of reasonable cause before it happens.  (Although one is often suspicious about what wholesale monitoring is done at the national security level of things.)

We need to think these things through very carefully in terms of what access is truly needed and effective to fight crime, and what is merely security theatre.  Also what kind of rules, oversight, checks, and balances must go along with law enforcement access in order to balance that against rights to privacy and confidentiality.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

There has been much written on Slaw and other places about the paperless office, or the virtual office. 

My personal view is that for the most part, we either already have the tools to accomplish it, or if we don’t have them, they can be acquired at low cost.   The barrier is mostly our will to do it.  Some people don’t see the need, or have a hard time giving up paper, or just find it hard to change.

Technolawyer points to an article that’s worth a read by New York lawyer Jay Fleishman entitled Being a Virtual Lawyer is all Mindset, not Technology.  While the article talks about the virtual office, the same goes for the paperless office, as a paperless office is essentially a virtual office that stays in one place.

For the record, I’m not totally paperless yet, but I’m getting close.  Perhaps I just need to take a few minutes to think about the paper that still flows through my office, and decide how to deal with it.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

Whether you are an Apple fan or not, the apparent flaw with the iPhone 4 external antenna gets interesting on many levels – including the tech itself, why it wasn’t found during pre-launch testing, Apple’s reaction, customer relations, and testing by various entities. 

It seems that if you hold the iPhone in a way that your hand touches a certain spot on the antenna that are on the edge of the phone, it causes signal loss, and degrades reception.  Apple started out suggesting it was a software issue – but has since said that the fix is to hold the phone in a certain way.  Which resulted in this YouTube video showing how Steve Jobs and others in Apple ads are holding it “wrong”.

Apparently the problem can be solved by putting the phone in a case, or by applying tape to the offending spot.   (Is adding tape the equivalent of taping your glasses?)

One enterprising person is selling iTape, stating that the proceeds are going to charity.

There have been suggestions that there should be a recall, or that Apple should offer free cases, or that its not important enough to worry about.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.   It reads as follows:

We constantly see commentary on frivolous lawsuits, and cases that poke holes in limitation clauses in contracts of various types.  Perhaps everyone should have some sort of basic understanding of who is responsible for what.  So I propose (in jest of course)  that everyone be subject to the following agreement.

By being born, you agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, even you you have not, or can not, read them. 

You are responsible for your own actions.  Stuff happens in life, and you should look to yourself before you blame others. 

Stuff will happen that may entitle you to compensation from others (subject to deductables and the understanding that a successful lawsuit will not be equivalent to a lottery win), such as buying a defective product, or if someone fails to live up to a promise that you relied on, or if someone breaches a duty of care they owe you. 

At the same time, don’t expect compensation if your problem results from you:

• being the author of your own misfortune,
• not paying attention,
• doing something worthy of a Darwin award,
• not taking reasonable steps to protect yourself,
• failing the “it seemed like a good idea at the time” test.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.   It reads as follows.

I’m on a panel tonight at the Ivey Business School talking about trends and opportunities in social media.  I’ll be talking about legal and privacy issues.

Some of the risks that come with social media arise from its newness.   There seems to be two opposing (and apparently inconsistent) factors at play whenever anything new arises. 

First, when something new comes along, people often don’t put it in the proper context, and forget all the old rules.  For example, people might make a comment on a blog or facebook that reveals something confidential, even though that same person would never have revealed that in a letter or email.

Second, humans have flawed risk perceptions.  We tend to underestimate the risks of things we are familiar with, and overestimate the risks of things we are not familiar with.  That leads us to be concerned about risks of something new, even if those risks are similar to, or less than, things we are used to.  This leads to the “lets just shut it down” reaction where employers simply block access to things.

These factors lead to some bad decisions on both ends, but also fosters debate and discussion over the issues that tend to sort things out over time.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows:

Microsoft has just formally launched a new gesture based controller for the Xbox called Kinect (formerly known as Natal) to go on sale November 4.  And a new, more compact version of the X-box.

So what has this got to do with the office?

For now, this device can only be used with an Xbox – but there is no reason that the same technology could not be used with a PC for a Minority Report like interface.  Indeed, there is evidence that Microsoft has this in mind.

For now, here are some ideas for how business might use the Kinect and Xbox – such as a way to turn a slide show into a more interesting event.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows:

The Law Society of Upper Canada is having a teleseminar at noon today entitled “The New Guide to File Retention and File Destruction.”

I’m one of the speakers – talking about issues relating to electronic records.

One of the fundamental principles of electronic records from a records retention and destruction perspective, is that electronic records should be retained and destroyed on the same schedule as paper records.

As I was thinking about the issues, it occurred to me that if I had to hazard a guess, I suspect many law firms, and many businesses for that matter, have not come to grips with this yet. 

The reason is simple.  Take the period of time a file is active, then add to that the time a closed file should be retained. (The LSUC suggests 15 years for typical files.)  Then consider how long electronic records have been around in a significant quantity.   We are just now coming to a time when law firms might have a significant amount of electronic records in addition to paper files. 

Certainly word processing and email have been around for more than 15 years, but in the early years the only thing that was kept was the paper. 

Personally, my viewpoint is that the electronic versions (word documents, email, images, faxes, collaboration tools, instant messaging, etc.) of documents are the real, original documents. The paper versions are just a physical manifestation of those records.