Ever wonder what you would do if you got a letter of investigation from the State Bar? Attend my webinar on May 24 (offered through the State Bar of California Solo and Small Firm Section) to find out what to do and not do. CLE ethics credit!
Info and registration link here!
In case you missed the Apple v. DOJ saga slowly whimpering as it exited stage left, check out my post at Lawyerist.
If you feel you’ve fallen behind on Apple v. the FBI, take a listen to the Podcast at Lawyerist for the nuts and bolts of why this case implicates critical legal issues. Then take a look at Lawyerist’s main page for a feature coming today rounding up the latest on amicus briefs, the Congressional hearings, and the San Bernadino DA’s new bizarre claim that the iPhone might somehow contain a dormant cyber weapon.
Apple lobbed one back at the government today, going on the offensive with an excellent Motion to Vacate the order compelling it to write a new operating system to hack into terrorist Syed Farook’s iPhone. It’s a brilliant piece of work and well worth a direct read, but in lieu of that, you can also check out my updated post over on Lawyerist. Scroll down for the highlight reel from Apple’s motion.
The press is touting a “possible deal” and a “compromise” regarding Apple that simply isn’t so. The DOJ filed a motion to compel Apple to comply with the court’s order to produce new software to help hack the San Bernadino terrorist’s phone. In that motion, the DOJ says that it is not asking Apple to turn the technology over to the government (well at least not in this case it isn’t).
That is not a “possible deal” nor a “compromise”. It does nothing to obviate any of the Constitutional concerns raised by the order.
The order remains a way for law enforcement to essentially place its order with private industry for tools it would like to have — not through bidding, payment to private industry, and other standard procedures, but by court order.
For more on this development in the saga, read my full post at Lawyerist.
As my readers likely know, I regularly contribute to Lawyerist.com, the largest online community of solo and small firm lawyers. The Editor in Chief Sam Glover recently wrote this excellent piece titled Why Are Lawyers So Expensive? I’ll Tell You Why.
Sam’s piece is about why lawyers cannot provide their services at super low rates without effectively changing the character of the attorney-client relationship. What I love about the article is his description of what you get when you hire a lawyer — you get a person who takes on your problems as his own, someone who loses sleep over your problems, who checks their email while at the park with their children because they are concerned about something coming in on your case. His point is that you cannot have someone who adopts your problems as their own for minimum wage.
While Sam is right about the financial side of it, what I want my clients to take away from the article more than anything is the idea that when you hire a lawyer, you should be able to dump your problems on us, and it is our job to take them on for you. We carry your burden; that is the job of a lawyer.
Apple’s public statement on why it will defy a Federal Magistrate Judge’s order that it create software to hack its own encryption is well worth a read. Apple has done a beautiful job of explaining in plain English the danger of complying with this order.
Adding to what Apple had to say, give some thought to what can happen after this order if it’s allowed to stand. If a court can use an Act from 1789 to order Apple to create new technology to help in this case, what would stop a court from ordering a Kevlar manufacturer to create better body armor for police, or a gun manufacturer to create a specific type of weapon, or….? The potential implications have no end.
Read more about my thoughts on this over at Lawyerist.com where I wrote today on why I think this order is a great danger to our civil liberties and to national security.