Sentences with phrase «electronic evidence expert»

Legal Talk Network Producer Laurence Colletti interviews electronic evidence expert Craig Ball at the 2015 Winter Meeting of The Florida Bar.

The Austin, Texas - based attorney, professor and electronic evidence expert has always been passionate about technology — somewhat too passionate at times.

Craig Ball is a Board Certified trial lawyer, certified computer forensic examiner and electronic evidence expert He has dedicated his career to teaching the bench and bar about forensic technology and trial tactics.

Legal Talk Network Producer Laurence Colletti interviews electronic evidence expert Craig Ball

Not exact matches

Sedona Canada does not analyze: (1) the meaning and consequences of the «system integrity concept» in the e-records provisions of the Evidence Acts — proof of «records integrity» requires proof of «records system integrity»; (2) the National Standard of Canada for e-records management, Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 («72.34»); and, (3) the need of the parties to exchange verifications of compliance, provided by records management experts, of their electronic records management systems (ERMS's) with the nationalElectronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 («72.34»); and, (3) the need of the parties to exchange verifications of compliance, provided by records management experts, of their electronic records management systems (ERMS's) with the nationalelectronic records management systems (ERMS's) with the national standard.

As to the use of experts in electronic records management, it is not yet the practice of lawyers to use such experts, but it should be because the Evidence Acts require it in order to use electronic records as evidence — e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and, s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act, and the Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of Evidence Acts require it in order to use electronic records as evidence — e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and, s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act, and the Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of evidence — e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and, s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act, and the Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of Evidence Act, and, s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act, and the Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of Evidence Act, and the Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of Evidence Acts of 9 other jurisdictions in Canada contain the same requirement (including the records provisions of Book 7 of the Civil Code of Quebec).

Mr. Arias has written, lectured and spoken on various subjects at law schools, legal seminars, webinars and legal conferences on topics including: litigating class actions, mass tort litigation, expert witness depositions and cross-examination, death care litigation, unfair business practices, business litigation, settlement issues and strategies, construction defect litigation, business torts, complex litigation, electronic evidence, discovery, jury selection, the use of jury consultants and focus groups, employment law, trial of class actions and representative actions.

For example, these frequently used evidence - producing types of technology go unchallenged: (1) mobile phone tower location evidence used to locate us - very frequently used because we all carry mobile phones; (2) breathalyzer / intoxilyzer readings; (3) electronic records management systems (records are now the most frequently used kind of evidence); and, (4) the technology that produces the data used to formulate expert opinion evidence.

Lawyer Michael R. Arkfeld is a leading expert on e-discovery and author of the treatise, Arkfeld on Electronic Discovery and Evidence.

(paragraph 9 point 1) The court also noted that there were «no generally acknowledged practices for preserving, documenting or securing electronic evidence», but on review, even the defendant's expert described the plaintiff's practice in this case as «picture perfect.»

Joining my co-host J.Craig Williams and me to provide their insights are two e-discovery experts: Michele C.S. Lange, staff attorney in the Electronic Evidence Services group at Kroll Ontrack Inc. and author of the ABA book, Electronic Evidence and Discovery: What Every Lawyer Should Know, and Dennis Kennedy, well - known lawyer and legal technology consultant based in St. Louis, Mo..

By introducing policies and involving experts before or at the onset of litigation, lawyers are helping themselves and their clients to ease the burden of managing electronic evidence.

«Technologically competent» also requires knowledge of the electronic technology that now produces most of the evidence, and very frequently used types of evidence; for example, these kinds of evidence: (1) records are now the most frequently used kind of evidence but most often come from very complex electronic records management systems; (2) mobile phone tracking evidence because we all carry mobile phones; (3) breathalyzer device readings because they are the basis of more than 95 % of impaired driving cases; and, (4) expert opinion evidence that depends upon data produced by electronic systems and devices.

The use of experts in the preliminary stages of a case will likely assist later when electronic evidence needs collecting, reviewing or producing in line with relevant laws.

The Court rejects both of these arguments, and in doing makes some remarks on electronic records and expert evidence.

The three analogies: (1) whereas a pre-electronic paper record can be symbolized by a piece of paper in a file drawer, an electronic record is like a drop of water in a pool of water, i.e., it is completely dependent upon its ERMS for its existence, accessibility, and «integrity» (as that word is used in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts; e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA); (2) if expert opinion evidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inEvidence Acts; e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA); (2) if expert opinion evidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inevidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inevidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and injustice.

The eDiscovery experts at ILS can be deployed anywhere in the world to investigate and collect data on any scale required, and will identify, extract, preserve, interpret and document electronic evidence on any scale.

As part of our plaintiff electronic discovery services, our firm provides you with certified computer examiners and analysts to assist in the expert collection and / or investigation of any forensic evidence.

Over the course of a combined 18 years in these roles, Peter has undertaken analysis of electronic evidence in hundreds of criminal and civil matters, presented expert evidence to state and federal courts, investigated and remediated internal and external data breaches for numerous organisations, managed complex electronic discovery environments, and provided advice to government, public and private organisations in relation to cybersecurity and IT governance related issues.

Re: lawyers practising in association with non-lawyers: - Absolutely necessary because: (1) technology will be the basis of almost all laws, therefore we will have to practice with other experts in that technology; (2) records management law will be a major area of practice because, records are the most frequently used form of evidence and e-records depend for everything on their e-records management systems (ERMSs), and they must be compliant with the National Standards of Canada for e-records management, which standards require legal opinions, and every significant change to an ERMS requires a legal opinion re ability to produce records able to satisfy laws as to e-discovery, admissibility of evidence, privacy & access to information, electronic commerce, tax laws, and compliance with National Standards of Canada for e-records management; (3) all new technologies require a legal framework, which means more work for lawyers; and, (4) otherwise, other professions and service providers who now provide «legal information,» will begin to provide «legal advice» and other services that only lawyers should be providing.

Better to increase the attractiveness of legal services by enabling lawyers to provide related services accompanying their legal services, e.g., family law lawyers providing financial planning advice, and law firms providing accounting and tax advisory work, and litigation lawyers working with experts who improve and maintain their clients» electronic records management systems, because records are the most frequently used kind of evidence and are completely dependent on their records management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free doelectronic records management systems, because records are the most frequently used kind of evidence and are completely dependent on their records management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downevidence and are completely dependent on their records management systems for everything, particularly their «integrity» （ which is what the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free doelectronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downEvidence Acts require be proved for admissibility; e.g., section 31.2 （ 1 ） （ a ） of the Canada Evidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downEvidence Act - see: Ken Chasse, «Electronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free doElectronic Records as Evidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downEvidence,» and the other «records as evidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free downevidence» articles on «my SSRN authors page, for free download ） 。

At the regional level, with NJI support, the regional education chairs have developed innovative new modules on criminal law topics as varied as racial profiling, expert evidence, conditional sentences, human trafficking, and evidence in an electronic world.

[155] The defendants argue that, because of the circumstances surrounding production by Ms. Ahadi of electronic documents and the conflicts in her evidence concerning the location of electronic documents in her home, I should give no weight to either Ms. Ahadi's evidence at trial or her self - reports to the various experts.

He is recognized as an expert on, among other things, the law of privilege, directors and officers liability, insurance, electronic discovery and electronic evidence, and document retention.

Because of his interest in social media, he's also been a contributing consulting expert re the California State Bar's «Effective Introduction of Evidence in California - Chapter 54 Electronic and Social Media Evidence.»

Daniel J. Capra Philip D. Reed Chair Established in 2009 An established expert and author in the areas of evidence, criminal procedure, and electronic discovery, Professor Capra co-authored the first casebook on e-discovery and digital evidence and wrote Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Eevidence, criminal procedure, and electronic discovery, Professor Capra co-authored the first casebook on e-discovery and digital evidence and wrote Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Eevidence and wrote Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of EvidenceEvidence.

Steve Rogers, a computer security expert with a company called Digital Evidence International Inc. in London, Ont., assists law firms with computer security and electronic discovery.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal recently held, in Ducharme v. Borden, 2014 MBCA 5, that electronic evidence did not require expert support for a judge to deal with its admissibility.