| The Lawyers Are Coming, The Lawyers Are Coming.
I bet that got your attention.
Actually, I am beginning to think that I could write a monthly
column on this subject alone. In the April, 1998 column I described a recent
hearing by a Texas House of Representatives Committee on what actions the
1999 session of the legislature should take. That article is on-line at
the Alamo PC website. Click on http://www.alamopc.org/claw/index.html
for links to prior articles from this magazine.
The legislature may not be of much help. The time is slipping away and
the legislature will not convene until January. Most laws passed will not
be effective until the end of August, 1999. Frankly, that will be too late.
What can be done now? There are a few options.
One of the best quotes I've seen comes from Jason Matusow, the
Year 2000 program manager at Microsoft. "Only 5 percent of the world's
code has dates in it, but that small piece affects 85 percent to 95 percent
of the rest of the code out there," Tick Tock—The Year 2000 Problem
by Kathryn Crawford is posted on the Microsoft server at http://www.microsoft.com/misc/features.htm.
Microsoft has launched a year 2000 web page at http://www.microsoft.com/year2000/.
I recently subscribed to an electronic discussion group that focuses
on the legal aspects of the Year2000 mess. The Practicing Law Institute
sponsors the list, and information about joining the discussion is posted
at: http://www.pli.edu/cgi-bin/frm/arts/Y2K_Software_Comp.htm.
Be prepared for at least ten messages a day.
The postings have been interesting , hysterical (and I don't mean funny)
and informative. But, there have been many helpful messages. Recent postings
have shared information about the involvement of the Federal Trade Commission
and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The dilemma—should we fix it or should we sue?
It is obvious that the issue is now getting the attention of the
nation. So much so, people are struggling with the dilemma; how much of
the remaining resources should be devoted to fixing the problem versus
building defenses to lawsuits.
Several contributors to the group predict the flood of litigation will
paralyze the court system. Consequently, they call for special legislation
that either limits liability or places a cap on damages. They suggest that
is the only way to save our citizens from the sharks. (Can you guess who
they think are the sharks?)
Others point to the legal system's ability to handle mass-tort
litigation, such as the asbestos cases. They argue that even though the
court system will be slow, it will work to help sort things out. By combining
cases into class actions, this group thinks it will work through the courts
without the need for major changes.
Personally, I don't think it will make much difference. It will
be too late for most small and medium sized businesses or individuals to
sue after the fact. The damage will have been done. If the bug has not
already stricken my new computer (and Microsoft Outlook) it appears January
1, 2000, will be a Saturday. Consider the facts that will exist that Magical
Millennium Weekend.
Most businesses will not re-open until Monday, January 3rd. If
everything works fine on Monday, no problem.
But, if anything terrible has happened, and if some other person
or company is legally liable for the damages, what options will be available?
Precious few. Why? Even though the courts would be able to handle the number
of cases, it will be years before the process would be complete. Can a
small or medium sized business wait that long? I think not.
Locally, the story seems to be that we are not very worried about the
problem. Frost Bank included questions about the problem in its semi-annual
questionnaire to members of its Executive Forum. The Express-News (Thursday
May7, 1998) reported that fifty-nine percent of the business leaders thought
the programming problem would not have a negative effect on the economy.
Forty-one percent didn't think it was a serious problem. The full article
was posted on-line at the http://expressnews.com web site. Maybe the respondents
were thinking about all of the business transactions that will be generated
for computer programmers and through sales of replacement hardware and
consumer goods.
The FTC
That subject is also concerning the federal regulators at the FTC. You
can participate in a much larger survey. The Federal Trade Commission published
a Request for Public Comment in the May 6, 1998, issue of the Federal
Register on the effects of the programming situation. The responses
are due by June 22nd and the full details are at the FTC's web site. The
regulators asked for information concerning the usual computer software
and electronic products. They also inquired about "how various segments
of the consumer financial services industry, including finance companies,
consumer credit reporting agencies and other businesses, will be affected."
Finally, the FTC is mulling the need for a series of public workshops on
the subject. Check http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9805/y2k.htm
for more information.
The FDIC
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has an extensive web site (http://www.fdic.gov/about/y2k/)
that provides detailed instructions on the Y2K issue for the nation's banking
industry. It has also posted its plan to minimize the risks for the nation's
banks. It includes the contract provisions that must appear in new hardware
and software agreements and standards for disclosure.
A sample of the information available on its web page is the definition
of what the FDIC means when it asks if something is Year 2000 compliant.
FDIC Definition of Year 2000 Compliance
Year 2000 compliant means information technology that accurately processes
date/time data (including, but not limited to, calculating, comparing,
and sequencing) from, into, and between the years 1999 and 2000 and leap
year calculations (Year 2000 is a leap year).
Furthermore, Year 2000 compliant information technology, when used in
combination with other information technology, will accurately process
date/time data if the other information technology properly exchanges date/time
data with it.
My usual caution applies. Do not take the information contained in any
of these sites as being specific legal advice. Your situation is unique.
Therefore the pieces you need in an agreement will fit together differently.
As my old boss said, "Bill, make the form fit the facts, not the facts
fit the form!" That has always been good advice.
Law Site Bookmark
I will try to add a bookmark to a legal site each month. Hopefully, each
will help laymen and lawyers build a list of useful sites for both reference
and breaking news. This month I want to pass along a site mentioned in
the Texas Bar Journal's May issue. (You know the Internet is mainstream
when the Texas Bar Journal includes web addresses.)
One of the most misunderstood aspects of "the law" is the interplay
between decisions in a particular case, prior decisions in similar cases,
the written statutes and constitutions. On the Six O'clock News they don't
have time to explain how the pieces fit in a one-minute "live from the
courthouse steps" shot.
Indeed, most of us sat through excruciating boring High School civics
classes. A very few of us were lucky enough to have teachers like Mrs.
Bronstead at Holmes High School back in the dark ages. (Well it was only
the 1960's!) She'd bellow, she'd plead, or she would whisper. Whatever
it took to make us understand that, "the Civil War was ‘multi-causational.'"
I'm not sure that is a word, but none of us will ever forget the lesson
that history is made of many pieces that maybe, just maybe, fit together.
Rod Borlase has a web-site (http://www.law.uh.edu/guides/)
on the University of Houston server. He has posted an article that makes
the same point about "the law." His analogy to building a wall by layering
the concepts of the corner posts, the core, the facade and the mortar is
a very interesting read. (http://www.law.uh.edu/guides/law_wall.html) |