Social Media & Technology

Current Issues in Searches, Admissibility, and Ethics

Guest Speakers:James Feehan, Eric Goekin,

Mark Wertz, Maureen Williams

Peoria County CLE Criminal Law CommitteeArt Inman and Linda Watson

Tech duties for Attorneys:• Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1: “a lawyer should keep abreast of

changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

• Thus, attorneys have an ethical duty to 1.) keep up to speed in the use of technology in our practices and 2.) we have a duty to make sure that we are advising and considering technology evidence and collateral attacks to our clients.

• Attorneys have an ethical duty to advise clients about the location and preservation of evidence, which now includes “digital evidence”.

• Attorneys further have a duty to execute due diligence to not only seek out this evidence but to preserve it as well.

This seminar will focus on:

1.) Where is the digital evidence?

2.) How do you get it/preserve it?

3.) How do you get the evidence admitted into court or keep the evidence out of court?

4.) How to stay in compliance with ethical rules in our daily practices today as we come into contact with technology in our every day practice.

I. Case Law Update• Linda Watson & Art Inman

A. No Searches of Cell Phones• i. No searches of Cell Phones Incident to Arrest

• * Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf.)• The United States Supreme Court unanimously held a peace officer may

not search a cell phone incident to arrest without a search warrant.• Facts: David Riley was arrested in August of 2009 after a traffic stop

located a firearm in his vehicle. The officers then took his cell phone and a search of that cell phone which contents linked Mr. Riley to an unrelated shooting that had occurred several weeks prior.

• The United States Supreme Court refused to expand Chimel’s SITA doctrine which allows officers to search a person/ various items a defendant has close at hand incident to arrest.

• SITA was rationale under three concepts: 1.) officer safety; 2.) prevention of escape; and 3.) preservation of destruction of evidence.

• None of which apply to a cell phone; absent exigent circumstances

No Searches of Cell Phones• Ii. US v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (2013).• * A police officer was performing routine surveillance

observed Mr. Wurie make an apparent drug sale from his car. Officers arrested him and took him to the police station.

• At the police station, the police officers took two cell phones into evidence, one of which was a flip phone.

• 5 – 10 minutes after arriving at the police station, the officers noticed that the cell phone began receiving phone calls from a contacted labeled “my house.”

• Officers opened the flip phone, saw that a woman and a baby was the screen saver.

• The officers then pressed a button, and accessed the call log, then pressed another button and accessed the phone number for “my house.”

B. Illinois Eavesdropping Law• 720 ILCS 5/14 - 2• * Was originally a two party consent law. • The law came under attack when people were being arrested

for video tapping police who were executing their duties.• However, in 2014, the Illinois Eavesdropping Law was declared

unconstitutional in People v. Melongo and People v. Clark.• Reasoned: the statute was “vague, restrictive, and makes

innocent conduct subject to prosecution.” Further, the statute lacked “a culpable mental state, subjects wholly innocent conduct to prosecution, and violates substantive dues process.”

Illinois Eavesdropping Law• In 1994 the legislature expanded the statute to require two

party consent. Thus, even the recording of a public debate without the consent of the presenter would be a violation.

• Federal Law: One party consent. Ie you can consent to recording your own conversations. Reasoning: if you can repeat your own conversations then recording your own conversations is simply more accurate way of doing so.

New Eavesdropping Law• Governor Pat Quinn signed into law the new eavesdropping

act on December 30, 2014.• Under the new law anyone can record a public peace officer or

any government official speaking to the public.• The new law requires all parties to a private conversation to

consent to the recording of any private conversation.• A private conversation is determined by a reasonable

expectation of privacy.

New Eavesdropping law• State’s Appellate Prosecutor’s Office also got a win with this

law in that under the new law, law enforcement does not need to obtain a warrant from a judge for wiretapping

• Investigators only need to gain the approval from the local prosecutor for such authority.

• If such wiretapping were needed for an excess of 24 hours, then investigators must seek a warrant from a judge.

• Biggest critique (in my opinion) is the provision of this new law that makes it a crime to forward an email or other electronic communication that the sender intended to be private.

SB 1342• www.ilga.gov to see the changes:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/SB/PDF/09800SB1342ham006.pdf

• “a person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally:• (1) uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner , for

the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all the parties to the private conversation;

• (2) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation;

SB 1342• (3) Intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious

manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication.

• (4) [regarding making and using and possessing a recording device]

• (5) Uses or discloses any information which he or she knows or reasonably should know was obtained from a private conversation or private electronic communication in violation of this Article, unless he or she does so with the consent of all the parties.

Recent Tech Cases• Keating v. City of Chicago• Legal challenge to Chicago’s red light camera law suit was dismissed (same

as affirmance) in November when the Supreme Court failed to come to a consensus. Two judges recused themselves and the remaining four were divided.

• Argued that tickets issued between 2003 – 2006, ie before the State law which allowed for it, were invalid.

• Elonis• Virginia v. Black• 538 U.S. 343; 123 S. Ct. 1536; 155 L. Ed. 2d 535

• I had access to keys for the fucking gates, that I have sinister plans for all my friends and must have taken home a couple. Y’all think it’s too dark and foggy to secure your facility for a man as mad as me. You see, even without a paycheck I’m still the main attraction. Whoever thought the Halloween haunt could be so fucking scary?

• Count One of the indictment.

Continued• In November 2010, petitioner’s wife obtained a protection from

abuse (“PFA”) order• against petitioner.• • Hi, I’m Tone Elonis.• Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife?• It’s illegal.• To go on Facebook and say something like the best place to fire

a mortar launcher at her house would be from the cornfield behind it because of easy access to a getaway road.

• Fold up your PFA and put in your pocket.• It is thick enough to stop a bullet?• Try to enforce an Order.

Continued• And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.• The only question is .... which one?

That post was the basis for Count Four of the indictment.

• 1.) Whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. §875(c)requires proof of defendant’s subjective intent to threaten.

• 2.) Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten; or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening.

Recent Tech Cases • Facebook posts = Criminal acts? • No, says a Wisconsin appeals court. State v. Thomas Smith.• Local police thanked local citizens in assisting them apprehend

two African American defendants who were fleeing. In response, Smith posted on the same forum derogatory comments, using profanity and name calling on Facebook. The Wisconsin Appeals court threw out the case of disorderly conduct declining to support the prosecution’s contention that such acts were not protected by free speech. In addition, the court ruled that the interaction needed to be face to face.

DIGITAL EVIDENCEA. WHERE IS IT AND HOW TO GET IT

James Feehan & Eric Goekin

B. DIGITAL EVIDENCE ADMISSABILITYMaureen Williams

What is “Digital Evidence”?• * Digital Evidence is Digital Information which is stored or

transmitted in binary form that may be relied on in Court.• * Huh?• Includes: information on computers, audio files, video

recordings, and digital images:• Cell Phones• Face Book Posts• Emails• Text Messages• Face Book, Twitter, Gmail, Yahoo,

WHAT IS DIGITAL EVIDENCE

For this Seminar we will focus primarily on:• Emails• Text messages• Twitter• Facebook posts

Famous Computer Forensics• Michael Jackson• Forensics recovered Internet history and email

• Scott Peterson• Forensics recovered Internet History which showed web searches for

dump sites.

* BTK Killer * Forensics used to trace letter back to a computer at his church

Digital Footprints• For Example an Email:• The sender types the message on his computer• A copy of the message is saved on sender’s computer• The copy is then sent across a network to the sender’s

networks fileserver.• The file server stores the message.• Then the file server creates another copy of the message and

sends it across a network to another file server, the receiver’s file server.

• That file server receives and saves the copy• Then generates a new copy, sending it to the recipient.• The recipient’s computer saves a copy.• ONE EMAIL: FOUR COPIES

Places to look for a copy• Sender’s computer• Sender’s network file server• Receiver’s network file server• Receiver’s computer

• Also consider:• Synching.• Does the sender or receiver have devices synched with accounts?• Does the sender or receiver utilize other digital devices to access

these accounts?

Major Cell Phone Company’s Data Retention• The ACLU compiled the five biggest cell phone companies’

data retention policies. Note: this information is from 2011.• https://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-location-tracking-request-res

ponse-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart

• Also see: http://www.search.org/resources/isp-list/

• Text Message retention: 3-5 days for Verizon. Not at all for others.

How to get it: Text Messages• Step One: PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE!!

• Subpoena:• Most text messages can be purged in a very short amount of

time, kind of (we’ll get back to this)• So, send a letter of notice to the cell company to preserve any

and all text messages from and to a certain phone number.• See sample Letter of notice to preserve to cell companies at

end of materials and subpoena

Subpoenaing Common Social Medial Sources:

• For detailed information on how to subpoena evidence from social media sources such as Facebook, yahoo, eBay, msn, and MySpace, go to:

• https://www.eff.org/foia/social-network-monitoring• Click on the FOIA documents tab, scroll down to the “Social

Media Law Enforcement Guides”.• These guides have fax numbers, contact information, and

procedures subpoenaing these social medial providers.• These guides even have sample subpoenas and

preservation request forms.

A word about Facebook• https://www.Facebook.com/help/473784375984502

• A witness can download and authenticate their account information using Facebook's “Download Your Information” tool, in the Settings drop down menu.

• If a witness cannot access their account, Facebook can attempt a restore to allow access, they can not however retrieve deleted material from a deactivated account.

Subpoena Facebook• Only law enforcement may seek to subpoena information

from Facebook.

• So – what do you do, when mitigating evidence is on Facebook and is not being pursued by the State?

• You’re going to need a court order directing the State to investigate the mitigating evidence (and likely an emergency hearing so the evidence doesn’t disappear).

PHONE FORENSICS

How to get it: Text Messages• If you have the phone with the messages still on it:

• Confiscate the phone – even if the texts were “deleted”!!

• Work with local law enforcement for a forensic analysis of the phone, or get your own forensic investigator!

• Is there a difference between smart phones and non smart phones?• What affect does that have on investigator’s ability to obtain the

forensics of a cell phone• Does it matter what type of smart phone you are working with?

I.e. are some phones easier to “hack” into than others and why ?• Android• Mac/Apple

• Are there any smart phones that are “unhackable” and why?

• What programs local law enforcement utilize to take a forensic copy of cell phones and how does that work?

• Can you pull Facebook posts, twitter posts, or emails from smart phones? Why or why not?

• What if the content was deleted?

Phone Forensic Example A walk through – Eric Goekin

Digital Evidence Admissibility

Maureen Williams

Motion in Limine• Four Attacks to the Admissibility of Social Media Digital

Evidence:

• 1.) Hearsay

• 2.) Authentication/Foundation

• 3.) Rule of Completeness

• 4.) Prejudicial v. Probative

Hearsay• 1.) Is the evidence really hearsay? I.e. is it really offered to

prove the matter asserted?

• 2.) Is there an exception which applies?

Is it really hearsay?• Examples of not being hearsay: Most, are found not hearsay

due to being submitted to show the defendant’s state of mind:• Benchmark case: State v. Chromik, 408 Ill App. 3d 1028, 946

NE2d 1039, 2011 Ill App lexis 306, 349 Ill. Dec. 543 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist., Mar. 29th 2011). Read this case!!!

• The defendant was charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault. The defendant denied any sexual contact with the victim. The court ruled text messages admissible to show the defendant’s state of mind as it pertained to consent.• Question: what if the defendant admits to intercourse? Thus, the

only person’s state of mind at issue is the victim’s. Still admissible?

Not Hearsay: continued….

People v. Davis, 2014 IL App (4th) 121040 (Dec. 8th, 2014): Defendant charged with UPCS w/ Intent to Deliver. State submitted portions of the police video interview of the Defendant wherein he was shown text messages and asked about them. Specifically, the text message which stated: “Can I get a 30 or 40?” After the State played portions of the video to the jury, the Defendant was asked on the stand what the text message said. The Defendant testified to the content of the message on the stand. Counsel for the Defense never objected, on any grounds. On Appeal, the lack of objection was found to not be ineffective assistance of counsel, in part because the text message was determined by the Appellate court to not be hearsay.

Not Hearsay: Continued….• The Davis court reasoned that because the text message was

not submitted to prove that the person actually got a 30 or 40.• The text message was submitted by the State as circumstantial

evidence to the Defendant’s intent to deliver, i.e. the Defendant’s state of mind.

• The Defense argued that it was hearsay because it was offered to prove the Defendant to be a drug dealer – which would depend on the truth of the text message.

• People v. White, 2014 IL App (4th) 120785 –U (January 8th, 2014).• There, the Defendant was charged with domestic violence; in a

pre-trial motion, the court ruled the text messages which stated, in part, “I’m pissed” showed the Defendant’s state of mind.

Not Hearsay: Continued….• People v. Lewis, 2012 IL App (1st) 103576 – U• The defendant was charged with Aggravated Criminal Sexual

Assault. Text messages from the victim to a friend were sought to be introduced by the State. The defense objected on grounds of hearsay and inadmissible prior consistent statement. The trial court ruled which was affirmed, that the text messages were being admitted to show the victim’s state of mind.

• Note: an unfortunate large number of cases which have specifically dealt with text messages as hearsay are unpublished.

• There is great article by the ISBA on this issue by Robert Park, “Abolish Rule 23 non-precedential orders”, (December 2014, vol. 60, no 6) on this issue, noting recent higher court’s rulings who have referenced unpublished cases in their reasoning.

Foundation/Authentication• Again, Chromik, court addressed what is required to properly

authenticate evidence, and in Chromik, the court was addressing text messages specifically.

• It’s very important to note all the facts in this case which went to the text messages’ foundation/authentication.

• 1.) the text messages were a transcription and it was a transcription of the entire text exchange (more on this in a moment.

• 2.) the message read into evidence was read verbatim • 3.) the message’s date• 4.) the message’s time• 5.) the number where the text message came from• 6.) the number where the text message was received

Foundation• An adequate foundation is laid when a document is identified and

authenticated. Chromik. • However, a recent unpublished case is important to note. People

v. Panchenco, 2014 IL App (4th) 110409. There the court found text messages were authenticated by circumstantial evidence which included:• Appearance• Content• Substance• Internal patterns• And “other distinctive characteristics”* However, the Judge admonished the jury that they were not to assume the text messages were conducted by the Defendant. The jury was instructed to make their own conclusions on who authored the text messages.

Rule of Completeness• Like Chromik, in a Federal case, US v. Lanzon, the Defense

objected to text messages on the grounds of rule of completeness, ie the text messages were being taken out of context. No. 09-14535 (11th Cir, May 4th, 2011) .

• The Lanzon court ruled that the rule of completeness was not violated because the defendant himself testified as to what the text messages actually meant.

• Thus, this issue has yet to be addressed by a higher court. • Further, the courts have not addressed if by allowing text

messages and thus forcing the defendant to take the stand to explain them violates a defendant’s right to remain silent.

• It’s important to note that the landmark case, Chromik, was complete transcript of the text message exchange, verbatim.

Prejudicial vs. Probative• People v. Lewis, the Defense argued that the text messages

were unduly prejudicial. 2012 IL App (1st) 103576. Outlaid a compelling argument that the danger in admitting prior consistent statements is that a jury tends to attach disproportionate significance to repeated statements which might not otherwise deserve.

• Unfortunately in Lewis, the author of the text messages was also accused of lying or fabricating her testimony, thus the text messages fell under the exception to prior consistent statements.

• To date, there is no higher court’s ruling that I have found, on a text message being included or excluded on this ground or even more generally, prejudicial vs. probative.

Ethical Issues In a Digital EraMark Wertz & Linda Watson

Credit Card Charges• ISBA Ethics Opinion 14-01• If you have accepted a fee via a credit card for a retainer,

including security retainers, and not a flat fee, the fees must be sent to your trust account, not your operating account.

• Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 clearly state hold property of clients or third persons in connection with representation separate from the attorney’s own property (i.e. operating account).

• Thus, by sending credit card charges to trust and not your operating account, you will avoid commingling.

Credit Card Processing Fees• In order to comply with rules of professional conduct,

attorneys need to make sure that the credit card company’s processing fees are only deducted from the attorney’s business account.

• This is to ensure that the trust account is not inadvertently overdrawn.

• Some attorneys are also handling this issue by immediately transferring the processing fee from your operating account to the trust account, this also solves this issue.

Can we pass the Credit Card Service Fess onto the Client?

• Yes.• If the fee is reasonable and disclosed to the client.• Word of Caution: be careful that doing so does not breach

your contract agreement with the credit card service provider.

Credit Card Runs/Client Confidentiality Concerns

• This issue can arise in the description of the credit card fee run on the client’s credit card bill.

• ISBA recommends that the description of the charge be very general.• For example, instead of describing the purchase as “Jones Peoria

County Felony” or even “Jones divorce” the description should be “Professional Services” or “fees and expenses”.

Social Media: Advertising & Friending Concerns

Social Media profiles are considered advertising, same ethical rules for web site apply.

RPC 4.1 – Truthfulness in statements

4.3 – Dealing with unrepresented persons

4.4 – Respect for rights of third persons

7.1 – Communication concerning a lawyer’s services

7.4 – communication of fields of practice and specialization

8.4 - Misconduct

Attorney Posts = Attorney/Client Relationship?

How many here have web sites?

How many here have web sites where a person can “contact you” and send you an emailed legal question?

How many here utilize legal boards to post responses to legal questions, suck as Avvo or LinkedIn or even their own firm’s Facebook or Twitter page?

Attorney Posts

These communications can be considered to have formed an Attorney/Client Relationship.

*if your communication addresses a specific need or matter (and really why else would they be communicating with you?) and you have responded, an attorney client relationship has attached with all the ethical restrictions with it.

• Note: even the fine print disclaimer (like Avvo has) does not save you. South Carolina Ethics Opinion 12-03 stated “buried language…is patently unfair to the lay person.”

Social Media Advertising• Beware assigned “specialties” and “expertise” brands from

filling out a profile.

• RPC 7.4 limits an attorney’s ability advertise that they are “expert” or “specialize” in a certain law practice area.

• Beware of platforms (LinkedIn and Avvo) assigning you these designations if you do not have the requisite certificate of “specialization”.

Social Media Advertising• Endorsements• From former clients, colleagues, • Be careful that those postings on your profile also comport with

the attorney rules of ethics such as advertising “specialties” or creating unrealistic expectations or is misleading about your experience and/or abilities.

Social Media Advertising: Friend Requesting• Attorneys have restrictions on their ability to solicit clients.

(RPC 7.4) This applies to social media.

• Ethic restrictions on solicitation can be inadvertently violated by using some the auto fill features on social media platforms.

• Example: LinkedIn – asks you if you want to import your contact list from your email account. If you select “yes” then linked in sends an email to your contact. This is a solicitation.

Social Media: Privileged Information• Duty to protect privileged or confidential information to

current clients, past clients, and potential clients. (RPC 1.6, 1.9. and 1.18).

• An issue can arise where an attorney blogging on a social media platform has violated this rule.

• Example: In re Peshek, MR 23794 (Ill. May 18, 2010). A public defender was suspended for blogging about clients and implying that a client may have committed perjury.

• Even geotagging could pose an inadvertent violation of this rule if you are working on a case and have disclosed your location when working on a confidential client and/or issue.

Social Media: Attorney Blogging• Hunter v. Virginia State Bar, 744 S.E.2d 611 (VA 2013).• The Virginia Supreme Court weighed a attorney’s First

Amendment rights against a duty to protect client confidentiality.

• Reasoned: Non-privileged information, such as information that was available to the general public, closed cases, courtroom (i.e. open to the public) information, an attorney had a right to free speech and the court could not limit an attorney’s right to free speech like any other citizen.

Social Media & Judges• Simple rule of thumb: don’t “friend” judges.• Some states are allowing judges to participate in social media

applications, some are not.• A Florida Judge had to recuse himself because he was Facebook

friends with the prosecutor. Domville v. State, 103 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

• In Illinois: State v. Kelly Klein (2011), an appeals court declined the Defendant’s request for a new trial where the trial Judge’s children were Facebook friends with the victim’s family. In this case, the Judge did not have his own Facebook account and the judge’s children were grown.

Social Media, Other Parties, third persons• Avoid social media communications with represented parties

(RPC 8.4a). Thus, blogging, posting, and friend requesting with represented parties violates this rule.

Social Media & third parties• Also applies to unrepresented third parties. (RPC 4.3 & 4.4).• Like a witness to case. Neither you nor any of your agents can

engage in false, misleading, or trickery, to gain access to third party’s social media pages.• Side note: This does not preclude your ability to view public pages of

potential jurors. • So, what if viewing a potential juror’s public page, sends a

notification to the juror? Is that unethical “communication”? • New York has researched this issue and determined: No violation.• The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Opinion 12-2; see

also, New York County Lawyer’s Association, Opinion 743.• Reasoning: lawyer did not directly seek to communicate with the

potential juror.• Question to consider: do we then as criminal defense attorneys have

a duty to view potential jurors’ public pages?

Attorney Client Privilege: An update

Guest Speaker: Mark Wertz

One day at trial….• We had to call the ARDC…in the middle of a jury trial.

What the rules say• Comment [1] of the R.P.C. clients are encouraged to “tell all”

to their attorneys.• So, what happens when a client has “told all” to his attorney,

and then either brings contrary evidence (fraudulent) or testimony to court?

• However:

• R.P.C 3.3 states that an attorney can not knowingly bring false evidence to a court.

What is “knowingly”?• Comment [8] to R.P.C. state that the prohibition against

offering false evidence only applies if the attorney knows the evidence to be false.• Comment further states that this does NOT preclude the

introduction of evidence which the attorney reasonably believes to be false. I.e. all doubts of truth must be resolved in favor of your client.

• However: if the falsehood can be inferred from the circumstances, you have to act. I.e. you can not ignore an obvious falsehood.

The lynch pin here is knowledge.

Comment 6 R.P.C. 3.3• Attorney must seek to persuade the client not to offer the false

evidence.

• If that doesn’t work, you have two options:• 1.) Withdraw. Don’t have to alert the court, and client

confidentiality is preserved.• 2.) If you can’t (i.e. your in the middle of trial) you have to then

determine if the false evidence must be disclosed to the court.

Do you have to disclose the false evidence?• This must be weighed pursuant to R.P.C. 1.6• (a) An attorney can not reveal information relating to the

representation of the client unless the client gives consent.• (b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the

representation of the client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:• (1) to prevent the client from committing a crime in

circumstances other than those specified in paragraph (c);• (2) to prevent the client from committing fraud that is reasonably

certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interest or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyers services;

• (c) A lawyer shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.

My client just said what?• If you reasonably believe that your client just committed

perjury, the analysis falls under 1.6(c). • The perjury is not a “future crime” it’s already happened.• It’s not fraud which would result in substantial injury to the

financial interests or property of another.• Thus, you’re left with: does the disclosure prevent reasonably

certain death or substantial bodily harm?• No? • Then, the duty to disclose terminates at the conclusion of the

proceeding. [See note 13, under R.P.C. 3.3]

Game Plan• Strongly advise your client to the tell truth• Advise him of the consequences if client does not• Get out early if you can & be discrete about why• If client insists on taking the stand, only ask about things you

know to be true & ask general questions• You can not refuse to allow the defendant to take the stand• If you know client will lie, disclose early to the court• Do not refer to any false facts in your closing

There’s an App for ThatLinda Watson

GoodReader by GoodiWare Ltd

• For Mac based devices: ipad, iphone, ipod• Save pdf to file on your computer and then pull them up on

your device• The app allows you to mark up the pdf on your device:

highlight, create sticky notes, etc.• Great for note taking on case law which you might argue to a

court.

Reminders• Built into your iphone• time and/or location based reminders• Hit your Suri function – tell Suri: “remind me to …. at 3:00 pm

or when I get to …..”• When you physically get to the designated place (like your

office or the court house) your phone will remind you of the task that you’d like to complete

Fastcase• Free legal research• Any smart phone or tablet

Dropbox• If you are not already cloud computing for case management

platform (and why aren’t you?) this is the app for your important documents.

• Any operating system, microsoft or mac• You can access any document you have uploaded to dropbox:

motions, research articles, case law, etc.• Free

Sign My Pad• If you are beginning to move to a totally digital practice, this is

the app for you.• The client signs on your ipad, you upload it to their file, print

and file. You’re done.

Scanbot Pro• iOS scanner app• Has an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) built in: recognize

and extract text from your scan• You can also annotate, highlight, note, and sign PDF’s.• You can also edit PDFs in this app

Black’s Law Dictionary• Who doesn’t want one in your pocket?

Law Stack and Law Box• Free• Comes with preloaded with US Constitution, Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

• Law Box has all the Illinois statutes

Legal News• Only $.99• Grabs top law news from all the legal news sites and delivers

them to your pocket

Billable Hours/Time Keeper• If you are not using a time keeper – get on it!