Category Archives: mcle

ABA TechShow: The Video

Live from TechShow 2009 ...

Live from TechShow 2009 ...

 

Thought I’d share some choice video from TechShow 2009 featuring all 4 of the Best of Show winners that I wrote up in TechnoLawyer, plus interviews with some of my heroes such as Bob Ambrogi, Jay Funeberg, and Kevin O’Keefe, as well as sightings of legal blogging all-stars like Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighelle. I’m still excited.  

 

See related videos here and find me on YouTube as practicehacker

ABA TechShow 2009 – Short and SaaSy

Were the ABA Damnit!

We're the ABA Damnit! We own you!

This was my 10th year at ABA Technology Show in Chicago. This year was particularly cool.  Here’s why:

Meeting The Heavies: To me, seeing people like Dennis Kennedy, Tom Mighelle, Bob Ambrogi, Jim Calloway, Kevin O’Keefe, Brett Burney, Andy Atkins, Jay Foonberg (!) and the rest of my pretend blog friends … I mean pretend LinkedIn friends … is like reconnecting with long lost relatives. Exciting and a little intimidating. But all of them were really great and down to earth. Except that Kennedy. Such a prima donna. I kid, I kid.

Meeting Canadians: Who can forget meeting the Great Librarian of Upper Canada! Beat that. Then there was Phil of the Future (my name for him), Steve Matthews (nice guy), Brett Burney (I think he’s Canadian), Dominic Jaar (vive la Quebec libre!), the boys from Clio (or as I called them, the Booth Babes), and a host of other talent from the Great White North. It was great to meet you all: now go back where the ice doesn’t melt until July.

Technology Becoming Accepted: This year for the first time in memory I noticed a preponderance of grey hairs and the careful gait of partners scoping out potential buys for their offices.  This was not the brash, flash-in-the-pan TechShow of the late-90’s in which the Internet was decried as a fad.

SaaS, Saas, and more Saas: Software as a service was all over the place, and by next year it will be pervasive. This year I was knocked out by the number and variety of kick-ass SaaS providers at the show including Clio, RocketMatter, and VLO Tech. Clio was my hands-down favorite for a number of reasons – I intend to use it in my own practice. Whatever your cup of tea, the idea of throwing away the IT department in favor of the Cloud is gaining traction fast.

Less is … Less: One lamentable fact about this  year’s show – there was less of it than I’ve seen in a long time. Another casualty of the economy I’d say, but we shouldn’t overlook the fact that many legal technology vendors have been slaves to profit instead of boosters for innovation and the slow economy is making it painfully apparent what a royal screw job they’ve been giving lawyers all these years. Many players couldn’t make it ? Good riddance to bad company.

Other than that however, it was a great experience as always and one that I heartily recommend to one and all. If you haven’t been to TechShow, go there. If you have, come back. A splendid time is guaranteed for all.

For more coverage see my SmallLaw Column in TechnoLawyer.

Check out Twitter coverage of TechShow.

As always, I’d love your thoughts. E-mail me at mhedayat[at]mha-law.com or tweet me @practichacker.

ttyl 🙂

ABA TechShow 2008 – presentation materials available

AI – Advanced IT/Security
CR – Client Relationships
ED – E-Discovery
GG Going Green
IN – Internet
LF – Large Firm / Corporate Counsel
LT – Litigation
MA – Mac Track
MO – Microsoft Office
MT – Mobile Technology
PO – Paperless Office
RM – Records Management
RT – Roundtables
SSI – Solo / Small Firm I
SSII – Solo / Small Firm II
SM – Show Me How

Share this post :

ABA TechShow 2008 – I came, I saw, I blogged …

http://www.technolawyer.com

Author’s Note: This year I got to blog the ABA Technology Show once again as I did last year in this pair of posts here and here. In addition, this year I was given the opportunity to publish my work in the prestigious publication TechnoLawyer. And on a related (and equally important) note, this was the second year in a row that I was sponsored by the august DuPage County Bar Association, thanks to the hard work of directrix and champion of technology, Glenda Sharp. To Glenda and this year’s bar President, Fred Spitzzeri, a great big Thank You! Here’s to doing it again next year …

I Attended ABA TECHSHOW 2008 and All I Got Was This Lousy Blog Post

Eliminating the Paper Chase: From Boxes to Bytes (Paperless Office Track)

A Real World EDD Motion Hearing (Litigation Track)

The Mobile Office: Take Your Desktop in Your Pocket (Mobile Technology Track)

Outlook Tips and Tricks (Roundtables Track)

So You Want to Be an ABA Author? (Special Session)

Beating the Startup Blues: A Tech Survival Guide (Solo/Small Firm II Track)

Grand Finale: 60 Sites In 60 Minutes

Crazy Mazy’s Best of Show: SQ Global Solutions

Crazy Mazy’s Best of Show: Legal Bar by BEC Legal Systems

Crazy Mazy’s Best of Show: Electronic Discovery

Crazy Mazy’s Best of Show: Adobe Acrobat Professional

A Report from the Exhibit Hall and Suggestions for TechShow 2009

never too early

ABA TechShow 2008
sure, it’s January and this year’s ABA Legal Technology Show (techshow) isn’t until March 13. but even if you’re not a technology geek like me you can still learn a lot from the annual summit of lawyers, vendors, salespeople, IT, and support staff that is techshow. personally, I always find something new there; and this year promises to be a watershed because the show is being chaired by legal blogger Tom Mighell of  inter alia. the fact that a seminal blogger like Tom is the chair of the planning board shows where the ABA’s head is these days (and it’s in a good place). so for those intrepid souls who are interested I humbly present a few things we can do now to get more out of this year’s show

guess that about sums it up for the moment. I’m looking forward to an exciting show this year!

Audio Mastering

 CDMastering.com/audio blog

For those creating MCLE/CLE Audio CDs, an have not updated the content yet alone the quality of audio.   Discmasters offers FREE Test Mastering – you hear the result BEFORE you make any final decisions.
 

top 10 e-discovery tips

E-Discovery (ESI) – must be produced…

Ed. Note: The following is a summary of a post published in TechnoLawyer by trial attorney and legal technologist Bruce A. Olson of Davis & Kuelthau, S.C.

Read the rules, the 2006 amendments, and the committee notes. The author suggests that the Advisory Committee Notes may be as important as the rules and amendments themselves.

The new rules apply to parties as well as nonparties. Subpoenaed non-parties must still produce electronically stored information (ESI). See e.g. 45 (a)(1)(C) – a subpoena recipient has 14 days from the time of receipt to object in writing, at which point the burden shifts to the requesting party to compel production.

ESI is no longer debatable – it must be produced. See e.g. 26(a)(1)(B), which now applies to “electronically stored information” instead of the more ambiguous “data compilations” (introduced in 1970). ESI is now an explicit category in Rule 34 regarding production requests as well.

ESI must be identified or produced in initial Rule 26 disclosures. See e.g. 26(a)(1)(B). New rules require production of a copy or description of all “documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things” the disclosing party may use, subject to the limitations in (b)(2)(C).

The “meet and confer” requirements now include preservation and production of ESI. See e.g. Rules 26(f) and 16, as well as Form 35. It is recommended firms consult with e-discovery vendors or computer forensic experts and make them part of the litigation IT team.

Rule 34(a) permits sampling by parties; Rule 45(a) does the same as to 3rd-parties. Sampling of ESI permits phased-in production so a smaller amount of information can be used to gauge the usefulness of a potentially larger amount. The result is cost savings all around.

Requesting party should specify format in which it wants production to be made. Of course even if it does not, the responding party must still produce information in the form in which it is maintained or one that is reasonably usable. But remember, failure to request information in its original (“native”) format may result in loss of critical metadata elements that can be as important or even more important than the files themselves. See e.g. Rule 34(b).

No obligation to produce information under Rule 26 that is not reasonably accessible. See Rule 26(b)(2)(B), (C). The author points out that under the amended Rules active data is regarded as “accessible” while backup media are not. The requesting party can also bear the cost of having “inaccessible” (hence more expensive) files produced (analogous to the role of Rule 45(d)(1)(D) as it applies to 3rd parties).

So-called clawback and quick peek agreements are recognized in Rule 26(b)(5). That is, the amended Rules recognize the reality that inadvertent disclosure is more likely given the slew of information to be produced electronically (volumes more than was possible before).

One of the greatest dangers in dealing with ESI is inadvertent spoliation – merely searching can in some circumstances alter the very information sought. Rule 37(f) provides a “safe harbor” — absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions for failure to provide or disclose ESI lost due to routine, good faith operations (provided such operations do not routinely destroy evidence).

See post with embedded hyperlinks in Word format