Sentences with phrase «electronic evidence lawyers»

Not exact matches

Defense lawyers complained Friday that prosecutors have been too slow to turn over documents and other evidence, including more than 2 terabytes of data from seized cellphones, computers and other electronic devices.

In a Feb. 3 filing that updated his investigation and the discovery process, Bharara submitted a filing to the judge noting that more than 1.7 million pages of various emails, phone records and forensic evidence from 22 electronic warrants have been made available to defense lawyers.

Therefore I resigned from the project, as did the other lawyer - member of the Working Group specialized in the use of electronic records as evidence.

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).

The improper procedure imposed by CGSB caused me as the Chair, and the other senior lawyer specialized in the use of records as evidence, Martin Felsky, [2] to resign from the CGSB committee that drafted what is now this National Standard of Canada: Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2017 («72.34 - 2017,» as of March 1, 2017evidence, Martin Felsky, [2] to resign from the CGSB committee that drafted what is now this National Standard of Canada: Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2017 («72.34 - 2017,» as of March 1, 2017Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2017 («72.34 - 2017,» as of March 1, 2017, pdf.).

The basic concept of e-disclosure has become familiar to many lawyers, but in the absence of the deluge of electronic evidence promised to break over these shores a few years ago, many have yet to really consider its full implications.

The group also included a senior federal prosecutor who taught evidence law, and a lawyer who represented Canada on international delegations on the law of electronic transactions.

The best evidence, however, is an April 2, 1994, news article in The Baltimore Sun, Lawyers in Cyberspace, about how Venable «recently hung out an electronic shingle as a publisher on the Internet — making articles by its lawyers available worldwide to users of the far - flung network of computer networks.Lawyers in Cyberspace, about how Venable «recently hung out an electronic shingle as a publisher on the Internet — making articles by its lawyers available worldwide to users of the far - flung network of computer networks.lawyers available worldwide to users of the far - flung network of computer networks.»

Author: Lawyer2Lawyer is hosted by J. Craig Williams a lawyer with the Williams Law Firm in Newport Beach, Calif. who also authors May it Please the Court, and Robert Ambrogi, a solo practitioner in Rockport, Mass., who also authors Robert Ambrogi's Lawsites, Media Law and BullsEye - Expert Witnesses & Litigation, contributes to Catalyst E-Discovery Blog; The ESI Report is hosted by Michele C.S. Lange, a staff attorney in the electronic evidence services group at Eden Prairie, Minn. - based Kroll Ontrack Inc.; Workers» Comp Matters is hosted by Alan S. Pierce, who practices at Alan S. Pierce & Associates in Salem, Mass.; and Ringler Radio is co-hosted by Ringler Associates» Larry Cohen (North Andover, Mass.) and Donald J. Engels (Chicago); Law Technology Now is hosted by Monica Bay, who is editor - in - chief of Law Technology News and also authors The Common Scold; In - House Legal is hosted by Paul D. Boynton of MCB Communications in Needham, Mass.; The Kennedy - Mighell Report is hosted by Dennis Kennedy, who also authors DennisKennedy.com and is a columnist for the ABA Journal, and Tom Mighell.

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..

«Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review» 17 (U.K.)(this article is written for related professions as well as for lawyers).

There should be a rule that recognizes, in circumstances where the Law Society has had to copy electronic records held by a third party, the Law Society may rely on the copies as best evidence and the onus is on the lawyer to provide a forensic copy of those records if the lawyer wishes to dispute the quality of the evidence.

The use of electronic evidence has increased dramatically over the past few years, but many lawyers still struggle with the complexities of electronic discovery.

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.

When collecting electronic evidence it is essential, therefore, that companies and their lawyers observe applicable employment, privacy and data protection laws, while also heeding court orders and considering the company's legal needs.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b)(2) mandates that lawyers meet and confer about discovery issues and agree on how to handle electronic evidence.

For instance the first chapter deals with essential aspects of electronic evidence that will allow lawyers to transition from the traditional use of hardcopy evidence to documents and evidence in the digital age.

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.

He has hands on experience with electronic evidence as a trial lawyer too.

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.

Sharon is president of Sensei Enterprises, a Fairfax, Va., computer forensics and legal technology company, and co-author of two ABA books, The Electronic Evidence and Discovery Handbook: Forms, Checklists and Guidelines and Information Security for Lawyers and Law Firms.

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 ） 。

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.

A relatively new breed of e-discovery lawyer has emerged as the sheer volume of electronic evidence began to multiply in cases, resulting in a need for better management, according to Dera Nevin, managing counsel, e-discovery at TD Bank Group.

By that I mean, lawyers need ways to get a jump on the cost, delay and anxiety that characterizes e-discovery circa 2010 and secure quick, non-destructive access to the electronic evidence that will drive the direction and outcome of the dispute.

Rakesh Madhava is CEO of Nextpoint, an evidence management service based in the cloud for lawyers to manage their electronic data.

Heuristica Discovery Counsel is offering lawyers a suite of litigation software, and the tech and legal support necessary for handling electronic evidence, says Duncan Fraser, its co-CEO and senior counsel.

Sharon is the author of the noted electronic evidence blog, Ride the Lightning and is a co-host of the Legal Talk Network podcast series called «The Digital Edge: Lawyers and Technology» as well as «Digital Detectives.»

No lawyer with half a brain plugs electronic evidence into his or her own computer and pokes around because, by now, most lawyers know about metadata, and appreciate that they can alter evidence simply by browsing it.

Deletion software suffers from a bad reputation in that it is often use to wipe out evidence, but it is also necessary when a lawyer intends on recycling, selling or giving away electronic hardware.

Lawyers applaud Campbell's championing of best practices for dealing with electronic evidence so as to ensure the cost of litigation will not continue to prevent cases from being resolved on their merits.

This very varied evidentiary legislation situation, will produce a very inconsistent caselaw, one jurisdiction to the next, once judges and lawyers realize the consequences in law required by the fundamental difference between an electronic record and a pre-electronic paper record — in particular, the «system integrity concept» that is expressly stated in the electronic records provisions; e.g.: s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act; and, s. 31.2 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act (see my Slaw blog article, «The Dependence of Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. electronic record and a pre-electronic paper record — in particular, the «system integrity concept» that is expressly stated in the electronic records provisions; e.g.: s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act; and, s. 31.2 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act (see my Slaw blog article, «The Dependence of Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. electronic paper record — in particular, the «system integrity concept» that is expressly stated in the electronic records provisions; e.g.: s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act; and, s. 31.2 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act (see my Slaw blog article, «The Dependence of Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. electronic records provisions; e.g.: s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act; and, s. 31.2 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act (see my Slaw blog article, «The Dependence of Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. Electronic Discovery and Admissibility upon Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. Electronic Records Management,» published Nov. 22, 2013).

Because most of the evidence used in legal proceedings now comes from complex electronic systems and devices, specialized legal research units like LAO LAW will be necessary for all lawyers.

About Blog Craig Ball of Austin is a trial lawyer, computer forensic examiner, law professor and noted authority on electronic evidence.