RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘regulations’

California Becomes Third State to Limit Access to Employees’ Social Media Accounts

Posted on: October 1st, 2012

By: David Cole

On Thursday, Governor Jerry Brown signed a new law that significantly limits when California employers may ask employees and job applicants for social media information.  Under the new law, an employer cannot require or request an employee or job applicant to disclose his username or password, access a social media account in front of the employer, or share any social media content with the employer.  However, there is an exception that allows an employer to ask an employee to divulge social media that is reasonably believed to be relevant to an investigation of allegations of employee misconduct or employee violation of applicable laws and regulations, provided that the social media is used solely for purposes of that investigation or a related proceeding.  The new law takes effect January 1, 2013.

With this new law, California joins Maryland and Illinois as the first states to have laws restricting employer access to employees’ social media accounts.  Fittingly, Governor Brown announced the new law via Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, and MySpace, saying that this law, and a companion law that establishes a similar privacy policy for postsecondary education students, will “protect Californians from unwarranted invasions of their social media accounts.”

Law Firm Risk Management – Internal Review and Insurance Reporting Obligations

Posted on: August 29th, 2012

By: Seth Kirby

While the practice of law is a profession, managing a law practice is definitely a business. In addition to their primary responsibility of representing their clients, attorneys must actively manage their office. Depending upon the size of the firm, an attorney may take on this role by themselves, or employ an administrative staff to oversee the firm’s operations.  Management of payroll, employee benefits, accounts receivable, and other such areas are essential to a profitable law practice.  But the successful management of a law practice is more than ensuring that administrative responsibilities are met.  The firm must also ensure that it is protecting itself against the risk of a malpractice claim.

Of course, every rational attorney does their best to ensure that they are properly handling their client’s affairs.  Nevertheless, mistakes can happen.  The vast majority of law firms purchase professional liability insurance to provide protection for the firm, and their clients, in the event that their negligence results in harm to their client.  But simply purchasing the insurance is not enough.  For the insurance coverage to be effective, the firm must ensure that claims, or potential claims are promptly reported to their carrier.  Failure to do so may operate to bar coverage for the claim.

How then does a law firm go about ensuring that claims and potential claims are recognized by the firm and properly reported to their insurance carrier?

A potential solution to this problem is outlined in a recent decision issued by the Georgia Court of Appeals in Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn v. St. Simons Waterfront, LLC.  That case concerned an evidentiary issue in a legal malpractice case.  The court considered whether a law firm could properly claim attorney-client privilege over communications with its in-house counsel.  The Court carefully set forth an analysis of how the issue should be considered and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the internal communications met the standards necessary for the application of the attorney-client privilege.

In its analysis, the Court laid out a blue print for how a law firm can create the position of in-house counsel on a full-time, part-time or ad hoc basis, which would allow the firm to evaluate and protect itself against client claims.  To obtain the protection of the attorney-client privilege during such reviews, the in-house counsel must be retained for the purpose of examining the firm’s exposure to a real or perceived risk posed by the client and, maintain a separation between themselves and the firm’s ongoing work for the client.

Although creating the full-time position of in-house counsel is not practical for small and mid-size firms, developing a plan for addressing potential client claims through in-house review is warranted.  At least one attorney in a firm should be designated as a point-person for the discussion of client issues.  That person then has the ability to protect their internal review of the issue from future disclosure by compliance with the rules set forth in Hunter.  Perhaps more importantly, that person could also be tasked with the responsibility of alerting the firm’s insurance carrier if appropriate.  Ensuring that potential client claims are affirmatively addressed by a firm, rather than swept under the rug, is often half the battle in resolving a potential claim.