Sentences with phrase «use of electronic evidence»

In 2007, he won the award for the best paper written for presentation to legal groups by the State Bar of Texas, for his effective paper on the use of electronic evidence.

His peers recognize his expertise in the use of electronic evidence and the role of social media in the divorce process.

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

Not exact matches

Also, as of 2006, any type of electronic records, including e-mail, can be used as evidence in federal lawsuits.

In the United States, Canada, and recently England, major reviews of the evidence have concluded that electronic fetal monitoring should be reserved for high risk pregnancies.18 Use of electronic fetal monitoring has increased worldwide, however, in both low and high risk groups.

There is some evidence that the use of continuous electronic fetal monitoring may lead to increased false positives for fetal hypoxemia and to resulting caesarean sections.21, 22

If, in the Sponsor's opinion, there is any suspected or actual evidence of electronic or non-electronic tampering with any portion of the Promotion, or if computer virus, bugs, unauthorized intervention, fraud, or technical difficulties or failures compromise or corrupt or affect the administration, integrity, security, fairness, or proper conduct of the Promotion, the Sponsor reserves the right at their sole discretion to disqualify any individual who tampers with the entry process and void any entries submitted fraudulently, to modify or suspend the Promotion, or to terminate the Promotion and conduct a random drawing to award the prizes using all eligible, non-suspect entries received as of the termination date.

But Peter Brocklehurst, Professor of women's health at Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, says «the more we use electronic fetal monitoring, the more harm we do, with little evidence of benefit.»

This latest experimental evidence could elevate the material's use as a test subject for next - gen applications, such as a new breed of electronic devices that manipulate its spin property to carry and store data more efficiently than present - day devices.

Professor Peter McOwan from QMUL's School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, and co-author of the study, said: «This research is important, as it provides further evidence that computers can be used as aids in creative tasks.

«To describe electronic cigarette use as «a new drug use option» and part of «at - risk teenagers» substance using repertoires» is unnecessarily alarmist, given the evidence that regular use among never smokers is negligible, the lack of evidence that electronic cigarette use acts as a gateway to tobacco use, and the likely low level of harm associated with electronic cigarette use.»

The most frequently used kind of evidence in all legal proceedings comes from electronic technology, particularly records.

Therefore it can be used to test the «integrity» that provisions such as, s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act (OEA), require of ERMSs, for the purpose of determining the admissibility of electronic records as evidence; e.g., R. v. Oler, 2014 AEvidence Act (CEA), and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act (OEA), require of ERMSs, for the purpose of determining the admissibility of electronic records as evidence; e.g., R. v. Oler, 2014 AEvidence Act (OEA), require of ERMSs, for the purpose of determining the admissibility of electronic records as evidence; e.g., R. v. Oler, 2014 Aevidence; e.g., R. v. Oler, 2014 ABPC 130.

When 72.34 (2d) becomes an NSC, we can all oppose the production at discovery, and use of electronic records as admissible evidence, on the grounds that the ERMSs that produced them have not been certified as being in compliance with any authoritative ERMS standard.

[17] For the cases where private keys were used without the authority or authorization of the person to whom the private key was linked, see the banking cases from the Russian Federation: Olga l. Kudryavtseva, «The Use of Electronic Digital Signatures in Banking Relationships in the Russian Federation», Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 5 (2008), 51 - 57; Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of Moscow Region of 5 November 2003 N K - A 40/8531 -03 -, Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 5 (2008), 149 - 151.

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.).

«Records management law» will be a necessary area of specialization because electronic records are as important to daily living as are motor vehicles, and are now the most frequently used kind of evidence.

This article is about the poorly drafted proposed 2nd edition of a National Standard of Canada, which the Evidence Acts make necessary for discovery and admissibility proceedings concerning the use of electronic records as eEvidence Acts make necessary for discovery and admissibility proceedings concerning the use of electronic records as evidenceevidence.

Therefore, 72.34 is an extremely important national standard, particularly so because electronic records and information management technology enables every electronic interaction, communication, and movement of information to automatically produce an electronic record, any one of which could be related to a legal service or proceeding, and become a piece of evidence, records now being the most frequently used kind of evidence.

Such programs include, but are not limited to, education on the following: a) an IT tool, process, or methodology designed to perform tasks that are specific or uniquely suited to the practice of law; b) using a generic IT tool process or methodology to increase the efficiency of performing tasks necessary to the practice of law; c) the investigation, collection, and introduction of social media evidence; d) e-discovery; e) electronic filing of legal documents; f) digital forensics for legal investigation or litigation; and g) practice management software.

Firms are also increasingly beginning to use e-disclosure professionals who can «harvest» electronic evidence by making a non-invasive mirror image through bit by bit and sector - by - sector copying of a memory device onto an external hard drive.

Electronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andElectronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), andelectronic records management systems (ERMS's), and... [more]

But the phrase in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts, «the integrity of the electronic records [or documents] system,» requires an authoritative national standard to give it a sufficiently precise meaning to be workable — e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and the reference to the use of standards in s. 31.5.

Meanwhile, blockchain technology is being used to provide electronic evidence to shape verdicts: instead of relying on a single judges» interpretation of the law, AI - provided answers to specific questions and clarifications relating to the case can help to disperse uncertainty in judgement.

The talk will address eDiscovery — the ways that electronic data is sought, located, secured and searched with the intent of using it as evidence in a civil or criminal legal case.

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.

CONDITIONS FOR USE OF AFFIDAVIT OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING (21) Evidence at trial by affidavit or electronic recording may be useELECTRONIC RECORDING (21) Evidence at trial by affidavit or electronic recording may be useelectronic recording may be used only if,

It treats good records management as being merely, «helpful but optional,» instead of mandatory and essential to the effectiveness of discovery and admissibility proceedings concerning the use of electronic records as evidence.

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.

And worse, the drafting committee of the 2nd edition of the «Sedona Canada Principles — Addressing Electronic Discovery,» will not compensate for the impact of the change (from pre-electronic paper records technology, to electronic records management technology) upon the efficacy of all laws concerning the use of electronic records asElectronic Discovery,» will not compensate for the impact of the change (from pre-electronic paper records technology, to electronic records management technology) upon the efficacy of all laws concerning the use of electronic records aselectronic paper records technology, to electronic records management technology) upon the efficacy of all laws concerning the use of electronic records aselectronic records management technology) upon the efficacy of all laws concerning the use of electronic records aselectronic records as evidence.

But they will have to catch - up soon because: (1) electronic records are the most frequently used kind of evidence; and, (2) every interaction, formal and semi-formal action, communication, and transmission automatically produces an electronic record, which means more records connected to more legal services than there are pieces of paper still in file drawers.

«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.

eDiscovery is a defensible, multi-step process in which electronic data is sought, located, secured, and / or searched with the intent of using it as evidence in a civil or criminal legal case.

Now that cases occupy hard drives and the evidence is itself more commonly in the form of electronic documents, our profession needs to become as adept at manipulating and presenting electronic media as the barristers of old were using the tools of their time.

Their next step is determining how to fully integrate technology to have a true electronic trial (where all processes from filing to the rendering of the decision are processed and all records are accessed electronically) rather than one which simply uses electronic evidence presented in the courtroom.

Such is also true of their legal departments, as is shown by the absence of ERMS issues in almost all case law and guidelines concerning the use of electronic records as evidence, including the four Sedona Canada Principles texts; see: Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Reviewelectronic records as evidence, including the four Sedona Canada Principles texts; see: Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 1evidence, including the four Sedona Canada Principles texts; see: Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law ReviewElectronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 1Evidence and Electronic Signature Law ReviewElectronic Signature Law Review 17 (pdf).

Electronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence ActsElectronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts (evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records management systems (ERMS's), and in their software; (3) the electronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records «system integrity concept» (records integrity requires proof of records system integrity) in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Actselectronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts (Evidence Acts (e.g. ss.

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.

No law firm has the necessary degree of specialization of staff, legal materials used, re-use of previously created work - product, or scaled volumes of production, to be able to cope with rapidly expanding volumes of laws, complexity of laws based upon technology, and the masses of records created by the automating of records by electronic technology — every interaction, communication, and transmission that we have now, produces a record, which could be related to some legal service, and records are now the most frequently used kind of evidence in legal proceedings.

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.

(5) increasing the ability of the law to render accurate and just results by use of the «triangle of interdependent concepts» for the use of electronic records as evidence.

41.1 - 41.8 of the Alberta Evidence Act); (4) the National Standards of Canada for electronic records management, [i] necessary for giving the word «integrity» a meaning in those sections; and, (5) that the solution to the high cost of the «review» stage of electronic discovery proceedings requires a different strategy and procedure than are used now.

The increasing use of electronic communications, from Facebook to text messaging, has challenged our courts to determine what is admissible evidence in family law hearings.

Add to this the increasing use of BYOD programs, dark - net and anonymous technologies, the search for electronic evidence requires specialized knowledge and strategic planning.

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.

The development of such legal infrastructure is necessary given: (1) the dependence of every legal service upon e-records; (2) e-records are the most frequently used kind of evidence; and, (3) other widely used areas of the law such as privacy and access to information, electronic commerce, taxation, and criminal law, are dependent upon e-records.

The «system integrity» concept that is in the electronic records provisions in 11 of the 14 Evidence Acts in Canada, [2] dictates that the use of an e-record as evidence requires an assessment of the records management of the ERMS in which it is stored — «records integrity» requires proof of «systems integrityEvidence Acts in Canada, [2] dictates that the use of an e-record as evidence requires an assessment of the records management of the ERMS in which it is stored — «records integrity» requires proof of «systems integrityevidence requires an assessment of the records management of the ERMS in which it is stored — «records integrity» requires proof of «systems integrity.»