New Iowa Supreme Court Rule Requires Lawyers to Protect Clients' Personal Information
New Iowa Supreme Court Rule Requires Lawyers to Protect Clients' Personal Information
A new Iowa Supreme Court rule requires lawyers to protect clients' personal information in an effort to combat identity theft. Rule 1.422(1)(a)(2) of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure states it is the responsibility of counsel and the parties to ensure that protected information is not included or redacted from court documents. The Clerk of Court will not review documents or materials to make sure personal information has been omitted or redacted.
Protected information includes:
1. Social security numbers.
2. Financial account numbers.
3. Personal identification numbers.
4. Other unique identifiers.
If a social security number is required only the last 4 numbers should be used. If financial account information is required only incomplete account numbers should be included.
Counsel is not required to omit or redact protected information from materials or cases deemed confidential by the Iowa Supreme Court: however, omission or redaction is required in proceedings that are initially confidential but which later become public such a divorce proceedings.
A party may also omit other personal information unless it is material to the proceedings or unless disclosure is required by law including:
a. Other personal identifying information such as driver's license numbers.
b. Information concerning medical treatment or diagnosis.
c. Employment history.
d. Personal financial information.
e. Proprietary or trade secret information.
f. Information concerning a person's cooperation with the government.
g. Information concerning crime victims.
h. Sensitive security information.
i. Home addresses.
j. Date of birth.
k. Names of minor children.
The new rule is effective November 1, 2006.
_________________
Rush on Business celebrates its 100th blog post in the next post.
A new Iowa Supreme Court rule requires lawyers to protect clients' personal information in an effort to combat identity theft. Rule 1.422(1)(a)(2) of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure states it is the responsibility of counsel and the parties to ensure that protected information is not included or redacted from court documents. The Clerk of Court will not review documents or materials to make sure personal information has been omitted or redacted.
Protected information includes:
1. Social security numbers.
2. Financial account numbers.
3. Personal identification numbers.
4. Other unique identifiers.
If a social security number is required only the last 4 numbers should be used. If financial account information is required only incomplete account numbers should be included.
Counsel is not required to omit or redact protected information from materials or cases deemed confidential by the Iowa Supreme Court: however, omission or redaction is required in proceedings that are initially confidential but which later become public such a divorce proceedings.
A party may also omit other personal information unless it is material to the proceedings or unless disclosure is required by law including:
a. Other personal identifying information such as driver's license numbers.
b. Information concerning medical treatment or diagnosis.
c. Employment history.
d. Personal financial information.
e. Proprietary or trade secret information.
f. Information concerning a person's cooperation with the government.
g. Information concerning crime victims.
h. Sensitive security information.
i. Home addresses.
j. Date of birth.
k. Names of minor children.
The new rule is effective November 1, 2006.
_________________
Rush on Business celebrates its 100th blog post in the next post.
posted by Rush Nigut at 6:14:00 AM
2 Comments:
It's great to see that several states are starting to realize the importance of security in dealing with personal information, however, it doesn't seem a very good solution to tell lawyers or clients to just NOT give out, or omit, personal information. There are many cases in which personal information can come in handy, such as determining a witness' credibility.
It's not so much that people should stop giving out information but the way that information is handled should be changed. Transferring information and documents through email might be one area where there can be improvement, or perhaps, denying rights or allowing access to authorized people in viewing personal information...all security holes should be evaluated and then plugged up.
You raise an excellent point. The way information is handled is critically important. It is my understanding the rule does not prohibit lawyers from using the personal information in the case itself. The apparent intent is to protect information which may be sitting in a court file. How that gets done in practice is an important issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home