A Minnow Swims In The Giant Legal Tech Sea

Trade show is awesome, just not geared toward small firms

Editor’s Note: Earlier this month, ALM, the parent company of the Law Tribune, presented its annual LegalTech expo in New York City. Attorney Monique Ferraro, manager of Technology Forensics LLC in Waterbury, offered to attend the event and report on it from the perspective of someone running a small law firm.

By MONIQUE M. FERRARO

The pocket protector Star Trekky side of me secretly hoped LegalTech would be a gathering of my people. So, when I walked in and spotted a guy who was dressed head to toe in an outfit that looked like he just emerged straight out of The Matrix, I was psyched.

Wrong room. Drats.

Pointed in the right direction, I entered the exhibit hall where the blue suits and armies of similarly clad “teams” clamored. Two entire floors of the New York Hilton on 6th Avenue were filled with more than 200 vendors. Without question, this event was both impressive and over-stimulating.

Legal Tech is Gotham’s annual gargantuan gathering of geeks, lawyers and their support staff. It is daunting to take on the whole two floors of exhibits, but my mission was to find software to track time and bring it into billing for a small firm. Trying to find a turn-key solution has proven frustrating so far, and demos eat up our time and resources.

We’ve narrowed down the search to a few products, but I figured that if there was a place in the world that would have what I was looking for, Legal Tech would be it. So, with empty brief case ready to receive

my SWAG (Stuff We All Get), I went in search of software. It was good to have a focus, because one could easily spend days roaming from vendor to vendor learning about the different products they offer.

It didn’t take long to fill the SWAG bag —stress ball, computer mug, a bazillion pens, a light-up ball for my dog, a Nerf thing for my son. A lot of the vendors gave away iPads. It seemed to me that the attendees probably used iPads as coasters. If the vendors wanted to impress the attendees, they should have given away helicopters. That might have made an impression.

Lots Of E-Discovery

Unfortunately, I didn’t find many products for small firms. Maybe next year when I have more time and am more familiar with the layout I’ll find more technology for the little people. Just from eyeballing the vendors, it’s a pretty fair estimate that at least half or more of them were hawking e-discovery, information management or digital forensics.

There was a lot going on with e-discovery. The field seems to have taken on a life of its own with all sorts of confusing products and services provided that, upon my review, were either just fancy names for something that’s been done for a long time or something that really shouldn’t be done by software vendors.

For instance, “early case assessment” is simply the act of taking stock of the information technology resources a party has in hand prior to producing materials for electronic discovery in a particular case. One would think that every company with general counsel would have a good idea of the electronically stored data it possesses prior to litigation. Maybe I expect too much, but it seems to me that given a particular case “early case assessment” shouldn’t require a roomful of blue suits.

“Predictive coding” is a technology patented by Recommind that purportedly automates the review process and cuts costs by 45 percent to 70 percent. By all accounts, the other e-discovery vendors were peeved when Recommind obtained the patent. Document review is wildly expensive. If it works, it will be great. If it doesn’t work, how will the results be measured and how will we know? The parties and counsel who take the risk take a big risk.

Some of the e-discovery software seems promising. Some offer de-duplication — which reduces the number of duplicate documents. There are, of course, arguments for not de-duplicating. For one thing, it takes some important decisions out of the hands of the attorney that should probably remain with the litigator rather than the software engineer. Certainly, it’s a process that should be undertaken only after the attorney has all the information about e-discovery, the electronically stored information in the specific case, and how the specific software used for e-discovery in the specific case operates.

A very interesting group of products is offered by a Hartford company. TyMetrix offers corporate legal departments software that analyzes how well their outsourced firms are doing based on various performance measures. But general counsel aren’t the only beneficiaries. The company delivers metric software for law firms to track their productivity and compare themselves against competitors in the market.

Continuing legal education sessions echoed the vendor displays. There was a session on technology-assisted review in e-discovery, a session on international e-discovery … so many classes on e-discovery that a lawyer could immerse oneself in it and theoretically learn all the angles. Again, it seems from the material and various offerings to be very complicated. But e-discovery really isn’t.

For lawyers interested in technology other than e-discovery, there were some very interesting sessions on information management and productivity analytics. There were presentations on the effects of social media on trials and juries and quite a few sessions on cloud computing. Social media discovery was buzzing everywhere. There was a session on iPad apps for lawyers.

An emerging field that one of the sessions addressed was reputation management for law firms — upon researching that topic, I found that a subscription for reputation management can cost upwards of $15,000 to $20,000 a year.

Enlist An Army

Bottom line: LegalTech New York is stunning. For big law to hook up with big e-discovery, it was a perfect match. For mid-sized law to learn about its options for e-discovery, information management and other legal technology, it was awesome. For small law, it was an amazing display of technology, but not so helpful.

To take in all that Legal Tech has to offer, one would have to enlist an army whose members would attend various programs in addition to checking out the vendors. With my little narrow focus, I was a single, very small minnow seeking a teeny piece of algae in an ocean of sharks, piranha, and barracuda vying for the blue whales.

To get the most out of the event, check out the “virtual show” online this year at www.legaltechshow.com and, later on, see how you like the vendors that plan to participate next year. It is very inexpensive to attend the keynotes and exhibits. A full-day or full-event pass is expensive, so unless you work for a big firm or have money to burn, it’s prohibitive. However, there is excellent content that is worth the investment if you look through the itinerary ahead of time and plan your schedule for a day or two well in advance. If you team up with a colleague, you can share what you learn afterward.•

Reprinted from the Connecticut Law Tribune, Published Monday, February 13, 2012

I added the pictures.

Anonymous Update: Interception of FBI and Scotland Yard Communications

Since I wrote the article on Anonymous for the Connecticut Law Tribune, the group has perpetrated perhaps its most audacious act yet. It intercepted a telephone conference between FBI officials and Scotland Yard and posted the contents online. The conference call topic was how to deal with specific suspected members of the group. See a rough transcript of the conversation here: RAW DATA Anonymous Transcript and an audio recording here: Anonymous Intercept FBI & Scotland Yard Call

Of course the issue isn’t the contents of the conversation between the law enforcement agencies. The ISSUE is that a telephone conference was intercepted by a rogue group of nerdy bad boyz and girlz. Coverage of the incident didn’t seem to be as extensive in the United States as it was in the United Kingdom. I can’t figure if it’s because the media in the US is too afraid to cover it or that they just don’t understand the enormity of this threat. It is huge.

As a technology matter, what they did wasn't a big deal. The conference call code was probably gained through monitoring someone's email via a Trojan or keylogger (just a guess) and then someone just called in and recorded the conversation.

Worse, and more likely, is that there's an internal security breach within the FBI and/or Scotland Yard that's sympathetic to the Anonymous cause. It doesn't have to be a law enforcement agent. Any disgruntled employee or ex-wife/husband will do. (Some very, very cynical folks say that law enforcement would never make any narcotics arrests if it weren't for women scorned by dealers and, of course, lucky patrol officers.) Actually intercepting a telephone or voice over IP call is much more difficult. That doesn't mean Anonymous operatives couldn't do that. They just didn't do that in this instance.

But don't let me minimize the magnitude of this event. No one has EVER done this. Intercepting law enforcement communications is a big deal. They’re supposed to be secure. It’s bad enough that the US Department of Justice website was taken down in January. Now the FBI has had its live communications intercepted. What does that mean?

It means that our government basically sucks at security and Anonymous is exploiting that fact. For all of their puffed up blow-hardery (I made that word up. . . do you like it?), the feds have got nothing. That’s the point. That’s what Anonymous is doing. They’re hacking the feds and laughing their asses off. They’re posting their exploits to show that not only did they do it, but they spanked the feds hard.

Unfortunately, the knee-jerk reaction of the feds will be to spend more money and expend more resources tracking down the impossible. As an example, CNN reported that the feds are getting more secure phones. They’ll want to ‘bring the Anonymous threat to justice.’ And, predictably, they will fail and Anonymous will respond with more and more outrageous exploits that will make the DOJ and Homeland Security look like absolute dopes. So, how best to deal with it?

My two cents? Partner with them. Ask their advice. Give them some sort of clemency under a shroud of privacy. Hitting this threat head on is only going to escalate it. And, the more it’s escalated, the better Anonymous looks and the worse the US government and all the collateral governments, corporations and institutions look.

No. I know what you’re thinking. This is definitely not the same thing as negotiating with terrorists. The reason is that terrorists are looking to break us down and replace the government with something else. Anonymous has a completely different motivation. Find the common interests and work from there. They like the Bill of Rights, the government (is supposed to) likes the Bill of Rights. You get the picture.

Hacktivists: Robin Hoods Of The New Millenia

As with most criminal activity, the government is basically impotent against cyber crime. As more people log on, there is more crime. The more applications and sophisticated the technologies, the more adept the offenders become at using them to facilitate their criminal acts or avoid detection.

We saw this played out last month when the group Anonymous took down the U.S. Department of Justice, Warner Music and the Recording Industry Association of America web sites on Jan. 19. The hacks were in retaliation for the shutdown of Megaupload, an Internet site used to facilitate sharing large files, such as movies and large caches of music. The owner of the site and three others were arrested. Several million dollars in assets were seized. The Justice Department alleges that Megaupload’s primary use was to unlawfully traffic copyrighted material.

The takedown of the DOJ and RIAA sites are the most recent in a slew of exploits Anonymous claims responsibility for. Should you be concerned? Hell yes. First, let’s talk about who Anonymous is. Second, let’s talk about what that means for us lawyers and, most importantly, how that might impact us in our pockets short and long term. Finally, I offer an observation on the future of Anonymous and our information and communications technology.

Barely known a year ago, Anonymous has emerged as a powerful hacktivist group. (Hacktivists are computer network hackers who claim that their cyber crimes are motivated by political activism.) The group uses the Guy Fawkes mask as its symbol. Probably the most notorious traitor in English history, Fawkes led the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 in England. The goal of the plot was to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Although nowhere near successful, the conspirators actually got gunpowder close to Parliament. Fawkes was arrested after one of his co-conspirators sent a note alerting one of the Lords. Fawkes was subsequently tortured and executed, but he maintained his anonymity for several months under questioning. The English celebrate Bonfire Night each year to commemorate his capture and the safety of the queen. Fawkes’ effigy is burned on the fires, and the mask has become his symbol. Today, the mask is an emblem of anonymity and audacious challenge to the government.

Facilitating Uprisings
It isn’t so much that Anonymous hackers don't like the government and big business. They don’t. It’s more that their allure is that they come off looking like the Robin Hoods of the new millennium. In a very short span of time, they have amassed an enormous following and garnered the support and respect of many. Anonymous was instrumental in facilitating the uprising in Tunisia and has been central to the Arab Spring. They have been very active in the Occupy Wall Street movement, referring to themselves as, “the 99%.”

Their overarching message in blogs, on YouTube videos and in media releases is that they advocate for truth, freedom, freedom of speech on the Internet, the right of the people to protest and assemble and to right wrongs. Who can argue with that?

They have no leadership, but there are many supporters and obviously participants in the collective have signifcant technical skill sets and knowledge. Their targets have ranged from the government of Tunisia to NATO. They claim responsibility for taking down Sony PlayStation service, the CIA web site and the San Fransisco Bay Area Rapid Transit system web site. In December of 2011, Anonymous hacked Straffor — a company in the business of information security and intelligence — and used client credit card information to make donations to charitable organizations.

After the technology security company HBGary claimed to have infiltrated Anonymous, the group retaliated by shutting down the company’s phone system, hacking its web site, and publishing e-mails and other documents taken from their servers. Other victims of Anonymous attacks include the CIA, Facebook and a rapidly growing list of governments, academic institutions and corporations.

Lost Confidence
Why should we care? Well, as with terrorist attacks, when institutions we trust are compromised, that threatens our security. Our economy still hasn’t recovered from the Sept. 11 attacks. Consider the travel industry. Airlines are forever changed. Our confidence is still shaken. The hacking and security compromises of government, academic and corporate information and communications technology by Anonymous have similar ramifications.
Although it is doubtful anyone will be dissuaded from making purchases online, I don’t think anyone who knows about the incidents has the same confidence that the Justice Department web site is secure or that the RIAA is safe from attack.

It doesn’t take much. That’s the theory and success behind terrorism and hacktivism.

One success reverberates to create a great sense of threat. That’s why we spent so much money on homeland security. That’s why we spent so much money on two wars. If you boil the impetus down behind all the billions of dollars spent on the security and all the billions lost in revenue by our economy, it all goes back to the events of 9/11 and the hijackers.

“Do you want to see Anonymous rise up? Try to shut down the message.” OK, we get the message that the group doesn’t want Internet censorship or oppression. But how does that jibe with law enforcement’s struggle to beat back the rising tide of cyber-wrongs — serious injustices such as online child exploitation, violent crimes, human trafficking, theft, fraud, and intellectual property infringement? If Anonymous really is the Robin Hood of the new millennium, right those wrongs for us.

Anonymous has hacked many child pornography sites and taken down large criminal enterprises in the past. If its members would concentrate more on righting those wrongs — maybe by developing technology to identify and obliterate images that depict child sex abuse or that infringe on intellectual property rights — that would free up a lot of law enforcement resources. It would also reduce our tax burden substantially. It may relieve me of a great deal of my workload, but it would be a reduction I’d be happy to take.

Reprinted from the Connecticut Law Tribune February 6, 2012

Oxymorons: Google Privacy v Microsoft Uber Alles

People seem to be up in arms about Google’s new privacy policy.They’ve taken all their sixty something policies and now they have one. That’s how they’re selling it to customers. But critics are paranoid that the new policy heralds the dawn of Google Big Brother tracking us from our Gmail to our Google searches to our phones to our iPads. Woopee. As if that’s a revelation.

What the critics are griping about is the potential for Google to use targeted marketing across its many platforms. Google may amass our searches and send ads to our smartphone or to our gmail banner. Most of us won’t notice.

There have been calls for Congress to ‘do something.’ Um, like what? I hesitate to show my impatience, but, do folks realize that Google is actually a corporation that is out to make money and not a government entity? If you want to dictate Google policy, buy stock and get on the Board of Directors. OR, maybe you can just use . . . the. . . other Google. Hmmmm.

To that end, Microsoft has pitched its own bitch. The corporation launched a print ad campaign decrying the Google privacy policy, implying that we no longer have any protection from the prying eyes of the leering corporation and its minions. Sour grapes. Microsoft wishes it was Google. And, it wishes it could come up with both a single policy to govern all of its many concerns and track all of us as effectively and profitably as Google uber alles.