<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>twitter - California Employment Law Report</title>
<link>http://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/articles/technology-law/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 15:29:24 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 08:35:19 -0800</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Self-imposed MCLE for lawyers: computers, Internet and the law</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel Schwartz at the <a href="http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2010/05/articles/hr-issues/do-you-need-to-use-social-media-to-provide-legal-advice-on-it-to-employers-no-but/">Connecticut Employment Law Blog writes</a> about whether or not employment lawyers who advise their clients on social networking policies need to use social networking.  I&rsquo;ve writing on this topic before, but as the Internet becomes more and more dominate in everyday life, Daniel prompted me to revisit the issue.&nbsp;<img height="127" align="right" width="175" src="http://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/uploads/image/computer workers.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>While I do not think lawyers need to be IT experts, we all should have a working knowledge of technology, the Internet, social networking sites, and new developing technologies.  Technology and the law are becoming so intertwined that I imagine that this will be a component of the MCLE requirement for lawyers within the next 10 years.</p>
<p>Lawyers need to have a working knowledge of technology for a number of reasons.  First, IT issues predominate many discovery issues in litigation &ndash; and there is a wealth of IT information available through discovery if the attorney has an understanding of what type of information is recorded and how to refer to that information to get it.  Second, if a lawyer is advising clients on social networking policies, the lawyer needs to be familiar with the different web sites available and generally how they work.  It would, needless to say, be embarrassing to not at least be familiar with some of the more common technical terms, so when advising a client the<a href="http://techcrunch.com/2009/02/25/biden-forgets-recoveryorgs-website-number/"> lawyer does not refer to a &ldquo;website number&rdquo;. </a></p>
<p>Finally, there is no excuse to at least create an account and look around <a href="http://www.twitter.com">Twitter</a>, <a href="http://www.facebook.com">Facebook</a>, or <a href="http://www.linkedin.com">LinkedIn </a>&ndash; its free and it could be a good excuse to have your son or daughter teach you something.  Here is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites">great list of some of the most used social networking sites</a> one could start with.  <br />
&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2010/05/articles/best-practices/selfimposed-mcle-for-lawyers-computers-internet-and-the-law/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2010/05/articles/best-practices/selfimposed-mcle-for-lawyers-computers-internet-and-the-law/</guid>
<category>Best Practices For California Employers</category><category>Facebook</category><category>Linkedin</category><category>Technology &amp; Law</category><category>social networking</category><category>twitter</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 15:29:24 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Anthony Zaller</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>Jurors Using Twitter During Trials</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Today is the first time I&nbsp;heard that courts have <a href="http://mashable.com/2009/03/17/your-honor-i-tweeted/">having problems with jurors using Twitter during trials</a>. Am I surprised?&nbsp; Not one bit. Is it concerning?&nbsp; Yes.<img height="49" width="210" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/uploads/image/twitter.png" /></p>
<p>The article mentions that most of the messages sent via this form of &quot;microbloging&quot; are innocuous, and are simply jurors saying that they are bored during trials.&nbsp; There was one case in Philadelphia this week in which the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29740609/">juror twittered that a decision was reached</a> in a high profile case and there would be an &quot;announcement on Monday.&quot;&nbsp; </p>
<p>Jurors are ignoring (or simply not listening to) the Court's instructions not to discuss the case with anyone.&nbsp; </p>
<p><strong>Should jury instructions be revised to include a non-twitter policy?</strong></p>
<p>There is discussion now that jury instructions need to be updated to inform jurors that they cannot discuss the facts of the case on the Internet.&nbsp; I think a judge should probably admonish the jurors about posting anything on the Internet about the case during proceedings is strictly forbidden given how pervasive Web 2.0 has become. As for jurors who think they can get away with this are mistaken, and it still amazes me about how many people seem to forget that everything they do on the Internet is recorded - <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1538001/beware_google_records_everything_you.html">forever</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Take away for lawyers:</strong></p>
<p>If you were the attorney presenting when the juror posted that he/she was bored - time to reevaluate your case theme and trial presentation skills.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2009/03/articles/technology-law/jurors-using-twitter-during-trials/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2009/03/articles/technology-law/jurors-using-twitter-during-trials/</guid>
<category>Technology &amp; Law</category><category>twitter</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:48:58 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Anthony Zaller</dc:creator>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>