Oregon Legal Research Blog

G-mail and NON-subscribers: And then there is G-mail. Not to be a party-pooper (or Google-pooper), but I think attorneys, and everyone else for that matter, should be very careful when using gmail, either when receiving email or sending it. Gmail is worrisome on several fronts. It’s not a matter of Google “reading” their subscribers’ email, though that is what is being done if you define “reading” to include scanning and storing all the words, and not just one person with eyes/fingers/ears and a brain doing the same. No, no one is “reading” your email the way the recipient will (except maybe the DHS, but that is another problem). Here’s a quote from EPIC: “This is not the last word on Gmail, but it is a voice of reason and caution: “Gmail violates the privacy rights of non-subscribers. Non-subscribers who e-mail a Gmail user have “content extraction” performed on their e-mail even though they have not consented to have their communications monitored, nor may they even be aware that their communications are being analyzed.”

I’m not saying don’t use Google (and I’m using Blogger for heaven’s sake), which we all love for many reasons, or any of its relatives, but do keep your client’s privacy requirements front and center.

Google and Caution Should Go Together: Google is not the only online utility one must use with caution, but the latest stories are worth noting. From the EFF on February 9th, 2006:
“Google today announced a new ‘feature’ of its Google Desktop software that greatly increases the risk to consumer privacy. If a consumer chooses to use it, the new ‘Search Across Computers’ feature will store copies of the user’s Word documents, PDFs, spreadsheets and other text-based documents on Google’s own servers, to enable searching from any one of the user’s computers. EFF urges consumers not to use this feature, because it will make their personal data more vulnerable to subpoenas from the government and possibly private litigants, while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for hackers who’ve obtained a user’s Google password.”

Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Did you know that the U.S. Supreme Court posts transcripts of oral arguments on their official web page? So if you’ve put off reading the Oregon v Gonzalez arguments, now’s your chance – here.

Online Privacy – Baby Steps: If you don’t think about privacy on the web, start now. Even small measures are useful. Here’s one place to begin. There are zillions of others. It is always wise to assume no privacy online, but as in life where not all runs smoothly, why not take a little time at least to minimize the number of mistakes we do make? Put your seatbelt on, use your turn signals, wear light colors when out in the dark, eat breakfast, clear out your browser cache, and carry a big bumbershoot. Let it rain!

“Giving Legal Research Assignments to Others”: If you give research assignments to others and expect them to be done efficiently and thoroughly, thus saving everyone time, money and aggravation, here’s some excellent advice. (Thanks to a University of Washington law librarian for the tip!)

OSB Casemaker: I still meet Oregon attorneys who don’t know much about Casemaker, the legal research database the OSB makes available to all member attorneys. It’s free too – to Oregon attorneys that is. (In Washington State the bar also gives its law librarians passwords so they can help out the attorneys using Casemaker. Maybe Oregon attorneys are beyond help 🙂 Casemaker is a database of state and federal primary law and more. Did I say it’s free? You’d be crazy not to use it – or rolling in cash. Use it even if you have what you think are “flat rate” Lexis or Westlaw (together known as Wexis) accounts. In a nutshell, your next year’s Wexis “flat rate” is based on this year’s use, so keep your use of these great full-service databases to a minimum. If you can find the document you need quickly and easily on another, free or cheap, database, do it. Save Wexis for when you really need it. This is free advice from a Law Librarian. Listen to her. Link to Casemaker from the OSB web site.

Limited Scope Legal Assistance: If you ever assist pro se patrons, did you know that the ABA, “Handbook on Limited Scope Legal Assistance” has lots of information and forms such as sample retainer agreements and checklists for apportioning tasks? You can find a copy of this report of the ABA Section of Litigation at the Modest Means Task Force home page. For an interesting blog post on a closely related subject, see MyShingle, posting on 1/25, about attorneys and “cut rate” service. Clearly there is a problem looking for a solution.

Recycled ORS: I’m recycling superceded ORSs again this year. They are a better value than you think. Armed with the Sections Affected table (aka Amend and Repeal tables) in the 2005 ORS (online and in print, due out in Feb 2006), you can make good use of that 2003 ORS without too much worry, though a little worry is always wise. Check online with the 2005 version before making any commitments. (link: http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/)