Pennsylvania Issues Opinion on Metadata Mining

Hmmm... as noted elsewhere here, the question of whether it is ethical to look for metadata in a document e-mailed among opposing counsel has split the bar associations.  Pennsylvania recently issued opinion 2007-500 (not available on line, but at 30 Pa. Law. 46 and on westlaw).  After surveying those opinions, the committee concluded that "it woudl be difficult to establish a rule applicable in all circumstances and that consequently the final determination of how to address the inadvertent disclosure of metadata should be left to the individual attorney and his or her analysis of the applicable facts."

Pretty wild, what is happening on this point, with some states saying it's dishonest, some saying it's not, and Pennsylvania saying "it depends." 

Comments

[Andrew Perlman]

Thanks for the heads up. I've blogged about this point before, but I think it's absurd that the Bar does not make its opinions freely available online and limits access to members. If the goal is to ensure that people act ethically in situations that are gray (such as the metadata issue), why not make it as easy as possible for lawyers to learn the contents of the opinion?

[David Hricik]

Interesting point - I managed to find *most* of the opinions on line (hricik.com) but a few aren't unless you're a bar member. Texas, ironically enough, has the rules for free but opinions available only if you're a member of the ethics center... which adds to the irony.

[Mike Frisch]

As a frequent surfer of state bar web sites, I see that a number of bars have ethics opinions for lawyers only and without public access. I have always wondered why a consumer of legal services or interested citizen is blocked from ready access to the bar's ethics opinions.

[Alan Childress]

I guess we are supposed to use that "free" Dell for doing metadata mining in Pennsylvania, but only sort of. If we happen to have access to the ethics 411.

[Paul Raschke]

I am the current chair of Maryland's Ethics Committee. I can only answer for my Committee's practice, but perhaps this applies to the actions of other states as well. Originally, in pre-Internet days when publishing was costly, the Association charged for the books containing its opinions largely to defray the expense of publication. Consequently, the Association came to think of its opinions as something that should not be given away for free. When we went online, we limited access to members, with the thought that dues "purchased" online access. Perhaps that policy is open to question in an age when "information wants to be free." While I would favor opening the doors wide, I doubt I could muster a majority on my Committee for that proposition. In any event, that is the history of the policy.

[Paul Raschke]

I am the current chair of Maryland's Ethics Committee. I can only answer for my Committee's practice, but perhaps this applies to the actions of other states as well. Originally, in pre-Internet days when publishing was costly, the Association charged for the books containing its opinions largely to defray the expense of publication. Consequently, the Association came to think of its opinions as something that should not be given away for free. When we went online, we limited access to members, with the thought that dues "purchased" online access. Perhaps that policy is open to question in an age when "information wants to be free." While I would favor opening the doors wide, I doubt I could muster a majority on my Committee for that proposition. In any event, that is the history of the policy.

[jack parker]

hi
I would glad to join you,I am a new member of your commodity so can u tell me all what is all about that commodity work for

Thanks & Regards

jack parker

http://www.alcoholaddiction.org/pennsylvania