VBA Journal

SPR 2017

The VBA Journal is the official publication of The Virginia Bar Association.

Issue link: http://vba.epubxp.com/i/815343

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 13 of 42

SPRING 2017 • 9 any competition with success, one must first know the rules. Second, staying current on precedent and case development as the rule interpretations evolve remains necessary. e Law Practice Management Division has provided a wealth of educational programming on these issues and will continue to do so. ird, keeping up to date on the latest technology is extremely helpful in understanding uses and capabilities. is is an area that the LPMD has been directly committed to during the past several years. Our educational programming, including the recent mock Generational Debate, has focused on technology and its different uses in the profession and in society generally. Finally, the best advice in this field is, if you are not sure, seek help. Attending VBA presentations and staying active in the organization can help develop a network of knowledgeable colleagues in this as well as other specializations. ■ Joe Carpenter is general solicitor and information gov- ernance counsel at Norfolk Southern Corp. in Norfolk. He joined the VBA in 2003 and is a member of the Transportation Law Section. His involvement in the Law Practice Management Division started in 2011 with ser- vice on the Billable Hour Task Force. it, and 3. e information cannot otherwise be restored or replaced. Although the first two requirements grow out of the spirit of the 2006 version, the prejudice requirement is a new concept for the rules. Once this threshold has been met, the analysis turns to the intent of the spoliating party. Without "intent to deprive," the only sanctions available are those under (e)(1) such as additional or expanded discovery. With a finding of "intent to deprive," however, the most severe sanctions become available, including an adverse inference instruction, or a dismissal, or default judgment. ese changes echo what the students realized when they thought about my question to them; even when we have all of the available information at our disposal and the best of intentions, we don't always make what is ultimately deter- mined to have been the right choice. e issue of whether an activity was a "reasonable step to preserve" under Rule 37(e) will generally be decided well after the intended actions were undertaken. Many times, those questions are resolved after nothing can be done to recover what is lost. Perhaps the best tool for this field is a crystal ball. e question therefore becomes, what can practitioners do to best prepare to take reasonable steps? First, knowledge and analysis under the current rules is mandatory. To participate in An intergenerational panel of VBA members — William P. Dickinson III, Victor O. Cardwell, and R. Braxton Hill IV — debate their views on communications, technology, and the future of legal practice in "From Boomers to Millennials" at the VBA Annual Meeting. Photo by Marilyn Shaw.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of VBA Journal - SPR 2017