Protecting digital legal professional privilege LPP data

The Best Paper AwardTo enable free communication between legal advisor and his client for proper functioning of the legal system, certain documents, known as Legal professional privilege (LPP) documents, can be excluded as evidence for prosecution. In physical world, protection of LPP information is well addressed and proper procedure for handling LPP articles has been established. However, there does not exist a forensically sound procedure for protecting 'digital' LPP information. In this paper, we try to address this important, but rarely addressed, issue. We point out the difficulties of handling digital LPP data and discuss the shortcomings of the current practices, then we propose a feasible procedure for solving this problem. © 2008 IEEE.published_or_final_versionThe 3rd International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering (IEEE/SADFE 2008), Oakland, CA., 22 May 2008. In Proceedings of the 3rd SADFE, 2008, p. 91-10

Maintaining hard disk integrity with digital legal professional privilege (LPP) data

published_or_final_versio

A dual cube hashing scheme for solving LPP integrity problem

In digital forensics, data stored in a hard disk usually contains valuable evidence. Preserving the integrity of the data in the hard disk is a critical issue. A single hash value for the whole hard disk is not appropriate as the investigation may take a long time and latent sector errors (LSEs) (bad sectors due to media imperfection, for example) which cause a sector suddenly unreadable will make the hash value inconsistent. On the other hand, using a hash per sector may need to store a lot of hash values. Previous research has been conducted to use fewer hash values, but can resist some of LSEs to decrease the number of unverifiable sectors even if there are LSEs. This integrity problem is more complicated in the presence of Legal Professional Privileged (LPP) data inside a seized hard disk in digital forensic as the hard disk has to be cloned once seized and the original hard disk will be sealed after cloning. Hash values need to be computed during this cloning process. However, the cloned copy will be returned to the suspect for the deletion of LPP data before the investigator can work on the sanitized copy. Thus, the integrity of unmodified sectors has to be verified using the hash values computed based on the original hard disk. This paper found that existing schemes are not good enough to solve the integrity problem in the presence of both LSEs and deletion of LPP data. We then propose the idea of a "Dual Cube" hashing scheme to solve the problem. The experiments show the proposed scheme performs better than the previous schemes and fits easily into the digital forensic procedure. © 2011 IEEE.published_or_final_versionThe 6th International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering In conjunction with the IEEE Security and Privacy Symposium (IEEE/SADFE 2011), Oakland, CA., 26 May 2011. In IEEE/SADFE Proceedings, 2011, p. 1-

Protecting sources and whistleblowers in a digital age

A working report published as part of an initiative supported by Guardian News and Media, based on research conducted at the Information Law and Policy Centre, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. Launched at an event in Parliament on 22nd February 2017

The Bar Exam’s Contribution to Systemic Inequalities in Access to Justice Around the World

Existing literature does not give adequate attention to if and how the bar exam impacts the legal profession’s goals. Bar exam proponents say that the test separates competent candidates from incompetent ones, protecting the public from falling victim to inadequate legal services. But what constitutes a competent attorney? What are the goals of the profession? As legal systems become more complex and their impact on people’s lives all- encompassing, the ideal of improving access to justice—equitable and fair justice—is increasingly the target for justice systems across the globe. Addressing access to justice cannot be done without acknowledging the disparate barriers based on race, ethnicities, sex, and class. This comment argues that any licensure system for legal professionals should prioritize the impact such a system has on access to justice for marginalized communities. This comment further argues that the bar exam as currently administered by the United States and in similar systems abroad does not measure any definition of competence the profession should uphold. The goal of this work is not to offer a well-developed plan for reform, but to place a spotlight on where the system is failing and what we can potentially learn from nations around the world. The paper then considers potential alternatives to license legal professionals and suggests various considerations to weigh in order to design an effective system

International White Collar Crime and the Globalization of Internal Investigations

Much has been written about the methods by which counsel may efficiently, thoroughly, and credibly conduct internal investigations. Given the globalization of such matters, however, this article seeks to focus on the challenges present when conducting an internal investigation of potential international white-collar criminal activity. In Part I, this article will examine the challenges of selecting counsel to perform internal investigations abroad. In particular, consideration will be given to global standards regarding the application of the attorney-client privilege and work product protections. In Part II, this article will discuss the influence of data privacy and protection laws in various countries and analyze the challenges of attempting to conduct an American-style internal investigation in such jurisdictions. Part III of this article will examine interactions with employees during international internal investigations and will consider the challenges of complying with varying labor laws and due process requirements around the world. Finally, in Part IV, this article will discuss the hazards of multi-jurisdictional investigations by government agencies. In particular, consideration will be given to decisions regarding the disclosure of investigatory findings and the difficulties of engaging in settlement negotiations in an international enforcement environment

Privilege in perspective: client legal privilege in federal investigations

This report recommends 45 changes to the handling of claims of client legal privilege over material sought by federal investigatory bodies and royal commissions of inquiry. The inquiry found general support for maintaining privilege as a fundamental right of clients, which only should be abrogated or modified in exceptional circumstances. However, privilege must be balanced with the other public interest in ensuring efficient, effective investigations. The central idea behind the ALRC’s recommendations is the need for a single federal statute addressing the application of privilege in all federal investigations. It identified over 40 federal investigatory bodies with coercive information-gathering powers, as well as Royal Commissions. These include: law enforcement agencies, such as the Australian Federal Police; bodies concerned with the collection or administration of public funds—such as the ATO, Medicare and Centrelink; the major corporate regulators, such as ASIC and he ACCC; and a number of smaller, specialised regulators focusing on specific industries, such as the Fisheries Management Authority