Confidentiality Considerations — Lawyer/App Client Contact Sharing Concerns, Canadian Conflict Called

Confidentiality Considerations — Lawyer/App Client Contact Sharing Concerns, Canadian Conflict Called


Just “Smartphones”? Or are cloud/server/desktop-enacted LinkedIn/Outlook/Microsoft Groups integrations also in scope (amongst other information flows)?: “New York Bar Problems Ethics Viewpoint on Shielding ‘Confidential’ Shopper Identification Information on Smartphones” —

  • “On April 8, 2022, the New York Bar issued an opinion to safeguard “confidential” customer id information stored on an attorney’s smartphone. In individual, the viewpoint prohibits an attorney who outlets ‘confidential’ (as outlined below Rule 1.6 of the New York Procedures of Professional Conduct) client identification details in the attorney’s “contacts” folder on the attorney’s smartphone from consenting to share their “contacts’ with a smartphone application, except specified criteria are fulfilled.”
  • “The impression is centered on Rule 1.6(c), which supplies that an lawyer is needed to ‘make realistic efforts’ to avert the disclosure of “confidential’ customer data. The viewpoint describes that, prior to an attorney grants entry to his or her smartphone’s contacts folder, the legal professional should initially identify regardless of whether any make contact with info is ‘confidential’ shopper facts within just the that means of Rule 1.6. If clients’ names constitute ‘confidential’ information and facts, the feeling states that an legal professional should ‘make reasonable attempts to prevent the unauthorized obtain of other folks to those names, no matter if saved as a paper copy in a filing cabinet, on a smartphone, or in any other electronic or paper form.’”
  • “If the attorney’s smartphone ‘contacts’ folder consists of ‘confidential’ shopper data, the attorney may well not consent to share the contacts folder with a smartphone application, unless the lawyer decides that (1) no individual will see the information and facts and (2) the information and facts will not be bought or transferred to further third functions, with out the client’s consent.”

Previous Alberta justice minister, ex-legislation partner accused of conflict of curiosity in Kamikaze campaign probe” —

  • “Former Alberta justice minister Jonathan Denis and his ex-regulation partner Dale Fedorchuk have been accused of conflict of interest in connection with the Kamikaze campaign investigation — and of earning one customer ‘the scapegoat’ for one more: United Conservative Get together heavyweight Jeff Callaway.”
  • “The allegation arrived out in an job interview Cameron Davies, Callaway’s previous communications director, gave to the Workplace of the Election Commissioners (OEC) as component of its probe into Callaway’s 2017 UCP management campaign. He also accused the two attorneys of breaching solicitor-consumer privilege, specifics of which are contained in the OEC investigator’s interview transcript and summary obtained by CBC News.”
  • “Davies was Callaway’s co-marketing campaign manager and ran communications. He explained to investigators he’d certain a range of individuals to go along with putting their names on donations they did not make — and obtained two $7,500 fines in February 2019 for obstructing the investigation into the campaign by Alberta’s election commissioner. Davies was also fined $12,000 for facilitating irregular donations for the Callaway campaign.”
  • “But the transcripts from the initially in-human being interview Davies gave to election commissioner investigators in March 2019 — a thirty day period soon after his obstruction great — consist of allegations that his attorney, Fedorchuk, was not performing in his best fascination.”
  • “Instead, he alleges that the attorney gave privileged info to his legislation associate, Denis, in order to help a further shopper under investigation by the OEC: Callaway”
  • “When contacted by CBC News, Fedorchuk and Denis reported by means of Guardian Regulation that solicitor-client privilege stops them from responding to these allegations — or even ensure their involvement in the case. Davies subsequently sent Guardian Regulation an electronic mail waiving his privilege for this tale, but Guardian Law and Fedorchuk reiterated they’d be violating privilege have been they to answer any of the inquiries.”
  • “The interview and investigator’s summary incorporate certain claims created by Davies, which would violate Regulation Modern society of Alberta regulations if tested exact.”
  • “Running a darkish horse marketing campaign like Callaway’s isn’t from electoral law in by itself. But substantially of its funding was, according to a months-prolonged investigation by the election commissioner’s office.”
  • “In the OEC job interview, Davies reported when he figured out he could be qualified by the commission’s investigation, he was originally referred to Denis, who served as Alberta’s lawyer basic and justice minister from 2012 to 2015. But Davies stated the former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister assigned the scenario to Fedorchuk, his then-partner at Guardian Regulation Team.”
  • “What he did not know then, he claimed, is that Denis was symbolizing Callaway. If a regulation firm is representing two clients who may perhaps have diverse passions, it is important to at least build an ethical wall in between the two, University of Calgary assistant professor of law Gideon Christian states.”
  • “‘You can not be a slave to two masters,’ he explained. ‘The regulation agency should have put in location a framework to prevent private facts to be exchanged among the two lawyers performing on behalf of different people today in this situation.’”
  • “Davies advised investigators that no such wall existed. In truth, he said Denis was frequently existing on privileged cell phone phone calls in between himself and Fedorchuk.”



Supply website link