Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>Product Review:</i> KVS's Enterprise Vault Slams the Door on e-Mail Retention Issues
Like most of you ' okay, all of you ' we struggled mightily with many concerns surrounding e-mail retention. The paramount question was: “Now that e-mail has become ubiquitous and constant, how do we ensure client-related mail becomes a part of the client record?” Ancillary, but no less vexing, questions like how to keep timekeepers from receiving constant “Your mailbox is over its limit” messages without giving them unlimited mailboxes (What limit short of unlimited would not result in that message? And the corruption and other risks of an unlimited mailbox are well-documented, given that Exchange is a truly terrible database), how to eliminate reliance on the notoriously fragile and unreliable PST, how to improve searching (Outlook, after all, does not permit searching attachments, and is painfully slow to search message content), how to eliminate redundant message storage, and how to effect some manner of collaboration, contributed to the stew of issues any solution would have to address in order to be effective.
In the spring of 2001, we happily rolled out new desktop hardware with Outlook 2000 integrated with Hummingbird's PowerDOCS 3.5.1, believing we had found the solution to our e-mail woes. A simple drag-and-drop into the proper DOCS library, familiar profiling (the e-mail integration automatically set the e-mail's subject line as the doc title, and mailbox name as author, saving LOTS of typing), combined with the ability to secure sensitive mail, would provide the answer to managing the unmanageable. We quickly found, however, the Achilles heel we had not considered. We had already discovered in our test environment that timekeepers would need to be taught to set profile defaults (eg, set client and matter number), so that multiple e-mails could be profiled quickly; however, we had not considered the fact that even with profile defaults set, the timekeeper had to click “OK” for EACH e-mail profiled. For a busy timekeeper trying to save potentially hundreds of e-mails per day, this simply wasn't workable and was soon abandoned by virtually everyone.
So, by the summer of 2002, the hunt was on for a product that would allow the firm to address all the issues outlined above AND require little to no intervention on the part of the timekeeper. Perhaps your firm is a large, corporate-type entity where a directive can be issued from on high and all (except possibly the biggest rainmakers) will follow it, so your IT Department can craft its solutions based solely on technical merit. Ours, in contrast, is a firm that prides itself on the freedom of attorneys to practice as they see fit (within reason, of course), so any solution that would require much investment in timekeeper time would be ignored, and the expense thus a waste. However, because our IT Department is extremely lean, we must also ensure our solutions are technically sound because we just don't have the manpower for constant troubleshooting and user hand holding.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?