I have previously discussed some of the hazards of storing your client files in the cloud and some of the safety precautions you can take to protect yourself. This year has really turned out some great advances in cloud storage, so I want to now run through the top three cloud choices for lawyers and evaluate the pros and cons.
I was an early adopter of Dropbox. I got the free 2gb account and slowly worked it up to about 30 gb through referrals and other promotions. When I decided that I needed more space, I decided to open up a paid Google Drive account because it was cheaper for large storage. I used that for my archives. Later, when I migrated over to Office 365, I moved my files over to OneDrive because I wanted to use the advantages of SharePoint. I slowly moved my files from Dropbox over to OneDrive (called SkyDrive back then) and experimented with the features until I was comfortable completely migrating my stuff over. I was simultaneously using all three because of the drawbacks that each had.
In March of this year, Google shot first and dramatically cut its pricing. The $9.99 a month that I was paying for 200 gb of online storage suddenly got upgraded to 1tb for the same price. The following month, Microsoft responded and offered 1tb of storage on OneDrive to all of its Office 365 subscribers. On late August this year, Dropbox joined the war, offering 1tb of storage for the same $9.99 a month price. Although I had most of my files in OneDrive, I needed a large repository for my large files, like the video files from 8-hour depositions or focus groups we had done. OneDrive only let you store files up to 2gb and I had lots of video files larger than that. On September 10, Microsoft announced that they now support files up to 10 gb and they have tripled their syncing speed.
After all of these developments, how do the cloud services compare?
A few weeks ago, I discussed whether it was possible to go paperless. I want to pick up where I left off and drop a few more tips for how to go paperless and why it’s important. For me, as a solo practitioner, I have to be efficient. It’s how I keep an edge over other small firms and how I level the playing ground with big firms. But, it’s not all about competing with others. I reduce my paper use because I am just way too busy to spend 3 hours doing something that I could do in 30 minutes.
Also, just to be clear, when I say “paperless,” I really mean “mostly paperless.” It is not possible or practical to go entirely paperless in this current decade, but I think that the less paper we use, the better.
A few weeks back, Steve discussed Apple’s recent applications to register a trio of non-verbal trademarks.
This post contains the USPTO’s ultimate decision regarding the registrability of the design and layout of various application icons as part of a computer operating system, using rectangular geometric figures in rows. However, it isn’t a spoiler for Apple’s applications referenced above (those applications have yet to be assigned to an examining attorney).
No, instead, I’m referring to a since-abandoned application that provides some interesting contrast with Apple’s applications. In 2012, Microsoft filed an intent-to-use application for the mark shown below:
About two years ago, I signed up for Office 365, mainly to host my email. My $8.00 a month plan came with a bunch of things that I didn’t really think were that useful, but put it on my to-do list to look into them later.
One of those things was SharePoint. I had heard a lot about SharePoint, but could not figure out what it was. I knew a lot of the bigger law firms and Fortune 500 companies used it. The Lynda.com explanation only made me more confused – it’s not a program, it’s a whole experience and you can’t understand what SharePoint is until you experience it yourself.
I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out what SharePoint is, and I am about to spoil the journey for all of you….
Every couple of months, I get a legal technology newsletter that mentions the Word vs. WordPerfect debate. It’s not so much a debate as it is a handful of lawyers arguing with everyone that WordPerfect is better than Word. I’ve had this discussion in person multiple times before as well. A few months ago, an attorney tried to convince me that WordPerfect is better because you can press ctrl+c and ctrl+v to copy and then paste text. People usually bring up that federal courts require proposed orders to be in WordPerfect format (although this is no longer true). No matter what the argument is, there is usually some name calling.
WordPerfect is like Latin. It’s dead and used only by lawyers. When I see people arguing why WordPerfect should still exist, I always picture that person as someone who still has a Gore/Lieberman bumper sticker on their car. It’s over. Decisively over. It is the betamax of word processing software. It has lost the race.
Most people have moved on from WordPerfect for the same reason that language was invented in the first place: to communicate with others. You cannot share .wpd files with people outside your office. Unless you represent Corel, your client probably has Word. Sure you can open a .wpd in Word or save a WordPerfect file as a Word document, but the formatting is so screwed up that it’s usually unusable as a pleading. And, sure you can save it as a .pdf, but then you might as well print it and scan it.
Here are the arguments that I see every time on this issue:
The copyright industries’ obsession with trying to shoot down piracy at all costs can sometimes cause them to end up shooting themselves in the foot. Here, for example, is a great example from Microsoft, which has recently been fulminating against the dangers of software piracy:
A new study released Tuesday reaffirms what we in Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit have seen for some time now — cybercrime is a booming business for organized crime groups all over the world. The study, conducted by IDC and the National University of Singapore (NUS), reveals that businesses worldwide will spend nearly $500 billion in 2014 to deal with the problems caused by malware on pirated software. Individual consumers, meanwhile, are expected to spend $25 billion and waste 1.2 billion hours this year because of security threats and costly computer fixes.
* The legal fallout of the fight between Nick Saban’s daughter and her friend is now sitting in front of an Alabama judge. One thing is certain: this case would get dismissed if somebody could’ve avoid a 100 yard FG return for a touchdown. [ABC News]
* Congratulations to Paul Weiss on winning “Securities Litigation Department of the Year.” The award could also be called, “Wow, you helped Citi get out of a lot of jams this year!” [The American Lawyer]
* A KU law grad is donating $1 million to provide scholarships to a new generation of Jayhawk lawyers to run their firm’s March Madness brackets. [Topeka Capital-Journal]
Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series from Bruce MacEwen and Janet Stanton of Adam Smith Esq. and JDMatch. “Across the Desk” takes a thoughtful look at recruiting, career paths, professional development, human capital, and related issues. Some of these pieces have previously appeared, in slightly different form, on AdamSmithEsq.com.
One of the thorniest issues any leader has to deal with is telling senior-level underperformers that they’d be better off elsewhere. It calls on every skill in the manager’s bag of tricks, from financial analysis to subtler cultural and personality judgments, and accurate perspective on the impact on the organization overall of asking a high-profile person to leave.
To be honest, it’s also one of the most difficult challenges we deal with in advising firms about their paths forward. Although at times it’s crystal clear what needs to be done, far more often you have no such luxury of being able to shortcut analysis and judgment, and you have to work through all the potential interactions and repercussions to decide with some degree of confidence what to do. Then of course you actually have to do it. You’d be surprised — or maybe you wouldn’t — how often otherwise hard-headed and decisive leaders never quite get around to that part of it….
The ongoing legal fight, in which a bunch of US tech and internet companies — namely Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and LinkedIn — are suing the US government, claiming a First Amendment right to publish some details on the number of requests they get from the NSA under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, as well as the number of users impacted by those requests, is getting ever weirder. The government had filed its response back at the end of September. And, you might notice, large portions of it are totally redacted. For example, here is page 13 of the document (though, numbered page 8):
* Citi reports that firms saw a revenue jump of 2.7 percent in the third quarter. Revenue has now finally outpaced expenses for the year. Let the good times roll? [The AmLaw Daily]
* In regulatory fun, the Comptroller of the Currency issued some regulations on how banks can use consulting firms to comply with enforcement orders. In a nutshell, consultants should do their jobs rather than be a rubber stamp for the banks. Once again regulation arrives long after common sense required it. [Washington Post]
* A new company called Fantex Holdings might turn your fantasy football chatter into insider trading when it starts securitizing athletes. Now TacoCorp can endure an SEC investigation just like real companies. [Corporate Counsel]
* Microsoft’s IP counsel is opening a new office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Congratulations of the Ctrl+Alt+Deleting your career as an outside counsel. [Corporate Counsel]
* Harvey Updyke, the Alabama fan who destroyed Auburn’s landmark trees, owes $796,000 according to a judge. Roll Tide. [Courthouse News Service]
* Veterans applying to law school should take these tips to heart. [Blueprint Prep]
* The Amanda Knox trial has a ton of experts involved. No defendant, but a ton of experts. [The Expert Institute]
OmniVere’s delivery of end-to-end technology & data consulting to position the company as a true differentiator in the global legal technology and compliance space.
CHICAGO, IL, September 29, 2014 – OmniVere today announced the creation of the company’s technology & data consulting arm and the addition of several industry-renown experts, including the former co-chairs of Berkeley Research Group’s (BRG’s) Technology Services practice, Liam Ferguson, Rich Finkelman and Courtney Fletcher.
This new consulting practice will provide and expand existing OmniVere eDiscovery consulting services to corporations, law firms and government agencies with a special focus on compliance, information governance and eDiscovery. This addition of this top talent now positions OmniVere as a true industry leader in the technology and data consulting space offering best-in-class end-to-end services.
Ferguson, Finkelman & Fletcher are nationally recognized experts and seasoned veterans in the areas of overall technology, electronic discovery, and structured data. At OmniVere, the team will be focused on all global consulting activities with respect to legal compliance, complex data analytics, business intelligence design and analysis, and electronic discovery service offerings.
The Trust Women conference is an influential gathering that brings together global corporations, lawyers and pioneers in the field of women’s rights. Unlike many other events, Trust Women delegates take action and forge tangible commitments to empower women to know and defend their rights.
This year, the Trust Women conference will take place 18-19 November in London. From women’s economic empowerment to slavery in the supply chain and child labour, this year’s agenda is strong and powerful. Speakers include Professor Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Laureate and founder of the Grameen Bank; Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Executive Director of UN Women; Mary Ellen Iskenderian, President and CEO of Women’s World Banking and many other influential leaders. Find out more about Trust Women here.