http://forums.rmaa.com.au General Discussions and Chit Chat en Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:52:36 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forums.rmaa.com.au/images/kirsch/misc/rss.jpg http://forums.rmaa.com.au http://forums.rmaa.com.au/showthread.php?t=1700&goto=newpost Thu, 09 Sep 2010 02:36:02 GMT We hear staff comments such as she/he should act professionally. Or that is not professional. So how do we identify some one as professional or what... We hear staff comments such as she/he should act professionally. Or that is not professional. So how do we identify some one as professional or what makes you a professional? Have you ever tried to identify or looked at a person who you respect for what they are and thought of that person as a professional because of certain behaviours? I believe that the following behaviours (I have compiled from other readings) make a good professional which and what do you think?
• A good role model for others including, their behaviour, attitude and relationships
• Speaks in a way which is appropriate to each different audience without being patronising or putting people down
• Knowledgeable about the job, organisation, etc
• Good with people
• Communicate effectively, whatever the circumstances - actively listens
• Manages their time well, always in before time, and deliver on time
• Works well under pressure
• Fulfils deadlines
• Prioritises effectively - Is prepared to put in the time and effort to get things done, but also manages to have a reasonable work life balance
• Is accountable and takes responsibility for what they do and say, and for what they leave undone
• Know when it is appropriate to have a laugh over a coffee and when to behave formally
• are well versed in when to speak out and when to bite their tongue
• do not feel the need to be seen to be always right or stand on their dignity
• prepared to play the long game and wait for time and experience to prove their point
• do not dodge the issues but tackle them without aggression or anger
• can always say hand on heart “I expect high standards from my team and I demonstrate the same high standards at all times
• demonstrates a generosity of spirit, there is no need for their own ego to take centre stage
• allow the credit to be taken where it is deserved
• open to the views of others and the possibility that there might be a better way
• open to the views of others and the possibility that there might be a better way
• make decisions based on the best interest of the organisation
• fair and even handed to all people even those they do not particularly like
• evaluates their own performance
• has high expectations of themselves and others and constantly strives to improve.

If you are keen to succeed you need to demonstrate the appropriate levels of professionalism. If you want promotion in the future start to demonstrate that you have the potential to fulfil that role. Just wanting the job, the title, status and financial rewards are not enough. You have to show your commitment, the ability to come up with the deliverables.

You have to be the part of the solution rather than the problem. others will begin to notice and it will help you whether you go for an internal promotion or need a reference for an external position you have applied You will also gain a huge amount of personal satisfaction in knowing you have what it takes to be a great professional.. ]]> General Discussions Swinitha Nawana http://forums.rmaa.com.au/showthread.php?t=1700 http://forums.rmaa.com.au/showthread.php?t=1698&goto=newpost Fri, 03 Sep 2010 05:38:13 GMT Cloud Computing and Official records “Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable... Cloud Computing and Official records

“Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.” National Institute of Standards and Technology (NTST).
Vendors are busy talking up the benefits of cloud architecture, describing it as the next big thing for the industry. They point to the possibility it offers to reduce investment in physical equipment and streamline internal systems.
Vendors also emphasise that cloud-based technology can ensure an organisation becomes more flexible. Rather than purchasing and commissioning new hardware and applications to support each new venture, capacity can be rented as required. Here is what The Australasian Digital Recordkeeping Initiative (ADRI) has done.
MEDIA RELEASE 6 August 2010
Clouds Clear for Computing Risks
http://www.adri.gov.au/
The Australasian Digital Recordkeeping Initiative (ADRI) has launched a new product to assist in managing risks in an emerging technological environment and help protect the integrity of official records. It is a set of guidelines that provide Advice on managing the recordkeeping risks associated with cloud computing.
Cloud computing is an increasingly common business practice, which provides new opportunities and challenges for storing digital records. Often cloud computing is an internet service where data is stored by a service provider which may be outside of Australia and New Zealand territory borders.
In addition to offering substantial cost savings, it can reduce the pressure on ICT departments to provide ever increasing storage capacity. However there can also be risks associated with the use of cloud computing services where they are used to manage official government information.
The new guidelines released by ADRI are a list of practical measures to advise how government organisations can best utilise this emerging technology.
It provides a checklist for organisations to determine which records could be kept using cloud computing applications. It details the potential risks that need to be considered, and offers a list of useful contractual arrangements, as well as questions to ask of internet service providers.
By clarifying the what how and why, these guidelines allow government organisations to maintain the integrity of their recordkeeping and fully benefit from the advantages of cloud computing.
This new product is the latest of many initiatives to come out of the Australasian Digital Recordkeeping Initiative (ADRI). The initiative, which began in 2004, pools the resources of archivists across Australia and New Zealand to capitalise on new digital opportunities for recordkeeping.
Advice on managing the recordkeeping risks associated with cloud computing can be downloaded in the Products section:

ADRI Advice on managing the recordkeeping risks associated with cloud computing
http://www.adri.gov.au/products/Advi...0computing.pdf ]]> General Discussions Swinitha Nawana http://forums.rmaa.com.au/showthread.php?t=1698 http://forums.rmaa.com.au/showthread.php?t=1697&goto=newpost Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:25:11 GMT Hi All

I found this interesting and I like to share it with you
Thanks

Swinitha

Courts Disagree on Grounds for Imposing 'Adverse Inference' Sanction for E-Discovery Failings
by ACEDS Staff

The 2010 mid-year survey by the law firm Gibson Dunn finds a steady flow of federal cases where sanctions were imposed on clients and lawyers for e-discovery lapses, and broad disagreement among circuits on when the "adverse inference" jury instruction should be leveled for e-discovery infractions.

While the pace of discovery-related sanctions has moderated slightly through the first half of 2010 from the year before, a split among courts has surfaced. Jurisdictions are now grappling with how to penalize litigants who fail to preserve evidence, and opinions as to what e-discovery failings warrant an "adverse inference" sanction are all over the judicial map. (An "adverse inference" sanction, in general, is an instruction to the jury that they may presume that a party that failed to produce evidence would have been harmed by it.)

That is one the findings of Gibson Dunn's "2010 Mid-Year Electronic Discovery and Information Law Update." The large law firm, which maintains an e-discovery practice group, based its update on a review of 103 cases from January 1 through June 17 in which e-discovery was a prominent factor.

Relevanthttp://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/pages/2010Mid-YearElectronicDiscoveryandInformationLawUpdate.asp x Gibson Dunn survey

Part I | Social Networking

Litigants were somewhat less likely to seek sanctions this year than last, and slightly less likely to win them. The 103 e-discovery opinions included 31, or 30 percent, in which sanctions were sought, compared with 42 percent of the opinions reviewed for the full year 2009. Litigants were successful in getting sanctions in 21 of the 31 cases, or 68 percent, down from 70 percent in 2009, the Gibson Dunn research team found.


Courts 'likely to award' sanctions when sought

Says report co-author Matthew Kahn, an attorney with Gibson Dunn's San Francisco office: "This trend indicates to us that although there may be fewer cases where parties seek sanctions, where sanctions are sought and warranted courts will likely award them."

In 14 cases, or two- thirds of the 21 successful efforts, the resulting sanctions covered the costs and fees of the discovery dispute. Those included cases where courts penalized attorneys for not providing clients with adequate supervision over the collection and preservation of materials. In one case, In re: A&M Florida Properties, the court sanctioned both outside counsel and client because the attorney failed to grasp "the technical depths to which electronic discovery can sometimes go." In an awkward turn, the court then instructed client and lawyer to come back with arguments as to how much of the sanction should be borne by each of them.

The question of how to apportion responsibility for e-discovery lapses also arose in the continuation of a closely followed 2008 case, Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. Qualcomm had been hit with $8.5 million in sanctions by a federal magistrate judge, who also referred six of its outside counsel to the California Bar for disciplinary action, because they had failed to search the files of key records custodians adequately. The magistrate's ruling was then reversed by a district court, and last April the magistrate lifted the sanctions against the lawyers after they presented evidence covered by the self-defense exception to the attorney-client privilege.

The magistrate reiterated that "this massive discovery failure" was the fault of "mistakes, oversights and miscommunication" by both client and attorneys, which "revealed ineffective and problematic interactions between Qualcomm employees and most of the Responding Attorneys." But there was no finding of bad faith that would warrant Bar discipline.


'Adverse inference' sanction not uniformly treated by courts

What the Gibson Dunn report described as "the most notable and widely reported sanction cases" so far in 2010 concerned adverse inferences, where courts were divided on what degree of culpability such a penalty required.

In Pension Committee of University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec. LLC, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, author of the influential Zubulake decisions, ruled that an adverse inference jury instruction was justified—even without evidence of intentional misconduct—because the failure to preserve electronic documents indicated gross negligence.

Likewise in Wilson v. Thorn Energy LLC the court imposed an adverse inference sanction when relevant data was wiped from a USB drive, even though the safe harbor provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) covers data lost because of "the routine, good-faith operation" of an electronic information system.

Other courts, however, continue to require evidence of willful misconduct before finding adverse inference, even when the discovery failure shows gross negligence. Kahn mentioned a "split among the circuits in the level of culpability required to get an adverse inference sanction."


Some, but not all, courts require 'bad faith'

According to an analysis of adverse inference rulings conducted by Judge Lee Rosenthal, chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, the U.S. Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, 10th, 11th and D.C. circuits seem to require bad faith; the First, Fourth and Ninth circuits, Rosenthal found, hold that bad faith isn't required as long as the negligence results in severe prejudice to the adversary.

The Second Circuit, according to Rosenthal, permits the adverse inference sanction in cases of negligent destruction of evidence, while the Third Circuit balances "the degree of fault and prejudice."

Still, even though courts have shown themselves broadly willing to impose sanctions on clients and lawyers, and some apply a lower evidentiary standard to the adverse inference question, only one court so far in 2010 granted dismissal or default judgment for an e-discovery lapse without evidence of intentional misconduct.

Gibson Dunn reported that in Bray & Gillespie Management LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., the plaintiff ignored a clear request for documents from the defendant as well as three court orders; that non-compliance was, in the court's opinion, "willful and in bad faith." But even there, although a federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing the entire case, only certain claims related to the records were dismissed, and the case remained alive.

As report co-author Kahn said, "We're certainly seeing a decrease in the number of case-killing sanctions ... but I wouldn't say we're seeing a decrease in cases involving adverse inferences." ]]> General Discussions Swinitha Nawana http://forums.rmaa.com.au/showthread.php?t=1697