Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Archive for the ‘Laws’ Category

The Right to Broadband

Posted by rjbiii on November 22, 2009

Spain and Finland are implementing laws that will guarantee a citizen’s right to purchase broadband of at least one megabyte per second. The article on Finland notes that France has made internet access a human right. Of course, France has also passed the controversial three-strikes law, which would forcibly disconnect users from internet access without legal resource.

H/T: Slashdot

Advertisements

Posted in Articles, Laws, Legislation, Technology, Trends | Leave a Comment »

PI Licensing Laws in Texas and Michigan Continue to get Press

Posted by rjbiii on July 31, 2008

This time, the CEO (and former litigator) of Catalyst, John Tredennick, writing in Law Technology Today (reg’n may be required) passes comment:

Two states have recently enacted statutes that make it a crime for unlicensed individuals to engage in computer forensics. Texas passed a law that would give regulators the power to impose up to a year in jail and a $14,000 fine on people doing “computer investigations.” Michigan went a bit further. On May 28 th of this year, Governor Jennifer Granholm signed into law a bill that makes unlicensed computer forensics work in Michigan a felony punishable by up to a four-year prison term, damages of up to $25,000 and a criminal fine of up to $5,000.

Read the article for details, but Tredennick summarizes the Texas law thusly:

As I read these [Regulatory Agency] opinions, there is some comfort for people doing routine electronic discovery collection but not if there is a forensic or testimonial aspect to the collection. There is a strong suggestion that experts who are called to testify in Texas courts regarding examinations of electronic files better be licensed in Texas. If you don’t have a license, you might be pulled off the stand and escorted to the hoosegow for an extended visit.

Seriously…not the hoosegow!

With respect to Michigan:

How far does this reach?

Good question. If I were a forensics expert and offering testimonial services, I would be pretty nervous about this law. The Act seems to focus on:

Computer forensics to be used as evidence before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee.

Most electronic discovery is focused on collection rather than forensics and an argument could be made that your eDiscovery efforts are not about forensics but rather the collection of relevant evidence for review. But do you want to make this argument to some Michigan criminal court? I wouldn’t.

Post Process has previously blogged on this issue (here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Posted in Articles, Data Collection, EDD Industry, Forensics, Laws, Michigan, Privacy, Texas, Vendor Liability | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

What we have here, is a failure to communicate…

Posted by rjbiii on July 10, 2008

In three different interviews, and one post-mortem editorial, networkperformancedaily gets caught in the crossfire of differing interpretations of Texas’ new PI licensing statute. The amended statute, first noted by Post Process in July 2007, expands the definition of an “investigations company” so that it may include those tasks engaged in, not only by computer forensics technicians and intrusion detection experts, but computer repair shops as well. We have also posted on the law here and here.

The first interview is with the drafter of the bill, who acknowledges the law might need to be “tweaked,” and who has a fairly narrow view of the scope of the law’s reach:

NPD: I am not a… um… pretty good reader of bills. So, what I wanted to know… The claim is that people who repair personal computers would need to get a private investigator’s license in order to continue repairing computers.

Driver: Yeah, and that’s what they’re claiming. It’s interesting that they’re claiming all that, and they filed a lawsuit on the same day that they decided to open their Texas chapter. To me, I just felt it was a way they’re getting a lot of free publicity, and a lot of free press, and free TV time and free radio time, because the bill to me, it says what it says. There’s three words that describe somebody that repairs computers, and that’s if people retrieve or provide information, and there’s three words that somebody “reviews, analyzes, or investigates” that material, then, they do need to have some sort of security clearance because they’re delving into people’s private lives or private property on the computer.

NPD: The one thing that I noticed was that it seems very clearly that this is for personal computer investigators, like someone who does analysis to determine whether a crime has been committed or something has been stolen, or intellectual property has been violated. It doesn’t seem to me that this would apply to people trying to just recover information for the person’s wishes.

Driver: Right, and you’re correct. You used one of the key words in my opinion, which is “analyze.” “Review, analyze, and investigate” are the three key words, in my opinion, that drive the need for people to have some kind of license. Because if they’re doing some of that, then they don’t need to be – it doesn’t need to be just anybody able to do that – they need to have somebody that has a security license. But if someone’s just retrieving information and providing information for someone who is going to analyze, to use one of the words, then that’s just a regular computer repair person. And those guys are great, they’re good at what they do, and we never intended for them to get any kind of license other than have the ability to repair.

So, Mr. Driver subscribes to the theory that the lawsuit is merely for publicity, and that regular computer repair isn’t affected. The Captain of the Texas Private Security Board gives his interpretation:

NPD: So, maybe I could give you a couple scenarios and you could help – maybe you could explain whether or not it would be covered. For example, let’s say there was a network engineer who is trying to find the root cause of a slowdown on the network, and in the course of investigating that, they discover that the root cause is some sort of criminal activity, such as a virus infection, or someone engaging in massive intellectual property violation, in other words “piracy,” something like that. Would they then require a private investigation license? Would they have to stop their investigation at that point?

Bowie: Based on the scenario you gave it sounds like they’re performing a repair or support service, and they’re not – the intent was not to go in and do an investigation, they are just collecting information that they found, and that doesn’t, based on that scenario, doesn’t rise to that level of an investigation.

NPD: What about a PC repairman who is being asked to check for viruses on a person’s computer?

Bowie: That does not rise to that level either.

NPD: What if a parent brought in a computer that they owned, but which is primarily used by a son or daughter, and they wanted to find out, say, the browsing history?

Bowie: That’s just considered normal computer repair or support service.

NPD: What wouldn’t be considered normal computer repair – can you give me a very specific example where that line is crossed?

Bowie: No, it’s – when you read into 1702.104, there is some interpretation there that you have to consider. I can’t give you a specific example, I could probably use some type of scenario in the sense of, for example, if an individual is contracted to come in and say, for example, investigate your computer at your company – you have employees there, and you believe identity theft has occurred, that there’s been some issues and you want this individual to come in, inspect the computers, you want them to come in, perform an investigation relating to the identity, the habits, the efficiency, movement, affiliations or locations or transactions and acts, or the character of a person, or the location and disposition of lost or stolen property, or some type of damage to the system, then I think you’re moving more towards the spirit of the law, and falling into an investigations company.

NPD: Okay, so once you get to that point – this is something that’s considered now to be routine is, if a person is suspected of – well, you could say a number of different things. Not just illegal activity but also perhaps, unauthorized use of the network – recreational network use – would that speak to the character of a person if they’re browsing YouTube at work, and an investigation is made to determine if someone is browsing YouTube at work?

Bowie: I think what you have to do is take those on a case-by-case basis, and do a thorough investigation into the matter to determine whether a violation of the code has occurred. You just have to keep in mind that every scenario and case is different, and you have to take it on a case-by-case basis, and use the utmost discretion.

The problem, here, is that case-by-case means it isn’t easy to see what’s regulated and what isn’t. Also, what kind of investigation is required? Is mere statistical analysis over aggregate data exempt? If not, why not? Next comes, Matt Miller, the attorney from the Institute of Justice, who is leading the suit to have the law struck down:

NPD: Is the problem with the law or the interpretation of the law that the Texas Private Security Board has taken?

Miller: Well, it’s with both. Laws can be interpreted in a lot of different ways, and the private security board has chosen to interpret this law very aggressively. Since the law can be interpreted in that way, there are problems with the law itself. The interpretations that the board has issues, is the reason that this case has come to our attention, because they say specifically that computer repair shops should be aware that if they offer to provide these services they’ve committed a crime. And that kind of caught our attention, so we started looking into it, and the law itself is problematic because it is subject to such a broad and aggressive interpretation.

NPD: Would it also affect network engineers performing network analysis on their own companies’ computers?

Miller: Sure, and let’s talk about that because, it is complicated and there is quite a bit of nuance. It kind of leads to how this applies to these guys. We’ve gotten calls from people who say, “Well, if somebody’s switching out a hard drive, then that doesn’t apply to them, right?” And the answer to that is, yes. It doesn’t apply to them. But anyone who is analyzing data in a situation where that data points back to the actions of a third party – so, somebody who is not the computer’s owner, or someone who is not the owner of the company – anytime a third party is implicated by data analysis, this law is potentially triggered.

What the board came back and did was, they said that any analysis of non-public computer data to determine the causes of events or the conduct of persons is what they’re calling a regulated service. Of course, that is extremely broad. You know, for instance, if an employer went to a company and wanted to know how their employees were using the computer – that constitutes an investigation. The Board has said that when the service provider is charged with reviewing the client’s computer-based data, for evidence of employee malfeasance and a report is produced that describes the computer related activities of an employee, it has conducted an investigation and has therefore provided a regulated service.

NPD: So, other than the lawsuit, is your organization taking any other actions?

Miller: We’ve obviously tried to bring this issue to light in the media. Because it is somewhat technical, we’ve had to educate the media on how this works. And they’ve been very responsive. But the primary vehicle we’re taking here is this lawsuit and our goal is just to change the law. We’re not seeking monetary damages, this is not a personal lawsuit – we’re going to a judge and saying: “Judge, this is a bad law, and it stops our guys from practicing their profession – it stops a lot of people from potentially doing the things they do on a daily basis, and the law needs to be changed.” So we’re asking the judge to strike the law down.

Finally, there is an editorial based on the three interviews from interviewer Brian Boyko:

So, where did things go wrong? I think the man problem was a key misunderstood concept by Texas State Rep. Driver when he wrote the law. It is clear from the interview with him that he believes that there is a clear and well defined line between “retrieval of data” and “investigation.”

“’Review, analyze, and investigate’ are the three key words, in my opinion, that drive the need for people to have some kind of license. Because if they’re doing some of that, then they don’t need to be – it doesn’t need to be just anybody able to do that – they need to have somebody that has a security license. But if someone’s just retrieving information and providing information for someone who is going to analyze, to use one of the words, then that’s just a regular computer repair person.” – Rep. Driver.

But what Rep. Driver simply did not realize is that in the practical realities of IT, no such line exists. Any and every interaction that any IT person has with a computer requires some sort of “review, investigation and analysis,” whether it’s simple troubleshooting or complex network latency optimization.

Another issue here is that none of these people are judges. Once the law is drafted and passed, the legislator is disconnected, for the most part, and the bench takes over. It would seem that a little study of the industry might have been prudent. Even the best, most conscientiously drafted laws can’t foresee everything. The text of this law cries out for want of clarity and precision. Or, at the very least, “tweaking.”

Posted in Articles, Laws, State Licensing Laws, Trends, Vendor Liability | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Michigan’s PI Licensing Law Puts the Bite on MediaSentry

Posted by rjbiii on July 9, 2008

MediaSentry, now known as SafeNet, has been working for the RIAA to catch those the Music Industry thinks have been pirating music. Apparently the defendant in one of those cases, UMG v. Lindor, filed an administrative complaint against SafeNet, alleging that the organization has violated Michigan’s statute requiring a license for “engaging in investigations.”

Although a little out of our normal terrain, we at Post Process take note of the action, due to the concern over the possible effects of such laws on the E-Discovery and Litigation Support industry. The state agency’s letter to SafeNet is here (pdf). Some discussion of the matter can be found here.

Posted in Laws, State Licensing Laws, Trends | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

More details on PI Licensing and Forensics Technicians

Posted by rjbiii on July 1, 2008

An update on the licensing issues discussed here, here, and here, with a couple of helpful links.

First, Kessler International, a company that engages in forensics accounting, computer forensics and corporate investigations, has posted the results of a survey concerning state licensing laws with respect to forensics accounting and computer forensics companies and employees. The results are posted in map form. Click on the state that interests you, and that state’s response pops up in pdf format.

Now, with respect specifically to Texas, you may click here [PDF] to find a series of opinions made by the Private Security Bureau with respect to licensing issues and technical tasks associated with computers. Scroll down and look at those opinions from August 21 to October 18.

Some relevant excerpts (keeping in mind that these are the board’s opinions, and not judicial rulings):

Computer Forensics August 21, 2007
The computer forensics industry has requested clarification of the Private Security Bureau’s position regarding whether the services commonly associated with computer forensics constitute those of an “investigations company” and are therefore services regulated under the Private Security Act (Chapter 1702 of the Occupations Code). It is hoped that the following will be of assistance.
First, the distinction between “computer forensics” and “data acquisition” is significant. We understand the term “computer forensics” to refer to the analysis of computer-based data, particularly hidden, temporary, deleted, protected or encrypted files, for the purpose of discovering information related (generally) to the causes of events or the conduct of persons. We would distinguish such a content-based analysis from the mere scanning, retrieval and reproduction of data associated with electronic discovery or litigation support services.
For example, when the service provider is charged with reviewing the client’s computer-based data for evidence of employee malfeasance, and a report is produced that describes the computer-related activities of an employee, it has conducted an investigation and has therefore provided a regulated service. On the other hand, if the company simply collects and processes electronic data (whether in the form of hidden, deleted, encrypted files, or otherwise), and provides it to the client in a form that can then be reviewed and analyzed for content by others (such as by an attorney or an investigator), then no regulated service has been provided.
The Private Security Act construes an investigator as one who obtains information related to the “identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person; the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property; or for the purpose of securing evidence for use in court. Tex. Occ. Code §1702.104. Consequently, we would conclude that the provider of computer forensic services must be licensed as an investigator, insofar as the service involves the analysis of the data for the purposes described above.
With respect to the statutory reference to “securing evidence for use in court,” we would suggest that the mere accumulation of data, or even the organization and cataloging of data for discovery purposes, is not a regulated service. Rather, in this context, the Bureau would interpret the reference to “evidence” as referring to the report of the computer forensic examiner, not the data itself. The acquisition of the data, for evidentiary purposes, precedes the analysis by the computer forensic examiner, insofar as it is raw and unanalyzed. FN1 The mere collection and organization of the evidence into a form that can be reviewed and analyzed by others is not the “securing of evidence” contemplated by the statute.
This analysis is consistent with the language of HB 2833 (Tex. Leg. 80th Session), which amends Section 1702.104. The amendment confirms that the “information” referred to in the statute “includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.”

FN1 It may well be that the hardware on which the data exists is itself the product of an investigation, but that is a separate question.

Computer Network Vulnerability Testing Firms — AMENDED January 15, 2008
This opinion amends the previous opinion issued in June of 2007. The question posed was whether network vulnerability testing firms must be licensed under the Private Security Act, Chapter 1702 of the Texas Occupations Code (“the Act”). Such companies typically conduct:
(1) Scans of a computer networks to determine whether there is internet vulnerability or other external risk to the internal network;
(2) Sequential “dial ups” of internal phone numbers to assess potential access;
(3) Risk assessment and analysis on all desktop computers connected to the network;
(4) Notification of any new security threats and required action.
Section 1702.226 of the Occupations Code provides in relevant part, that “[a]n individual acts as a private security consultant for purposes of this chapter if the individual consults, advises, trains, or specifies or recommends products, services, methods, or procedures in the security loss prevention industry.” TEX. OCC. CODE §1702.226 (1).
However, while the Bureau regulates consultants in the “security industry or loss prevention industry,” these latter phrase is not explicitly defined in the statute. It is therefore necessary to look to the rest of the statute in order to understand to which services the private security consultant’s licensure requirement applies.
It is reasonable to consider those industries otherwise regulated by the Private Security Act as reflecting the scope of the phrase “security industry or loss prevention industry.” In other words, the definitions are implied by those services that are regulated by the statute, viz., security guards, locksmiths, alarm system installers and monitors, and private investigators, and not software designers, installers or suppliers.
Thus, the industries that are directly regulated are the same industries about which one cannot consult without a license. Because the Private Security Bureau does not regulate software designers, installers, or suppliers, it also does not regulate those who provide consulting services related to computer network security.
Computer Repair & Technical Assistance Services October 18, 2007
Computer repair or support services should be aware that if they offer to perform investigative services, such as assisting a customer with solving a computer-related crime, they must be licensed as investigators. The review of computer data for the purpose of investigating potential criminal or civil matters is a regulated activity under Chapter 1702 of the Texas Occupations Code, as is offering to perform such services. Section 1702.102 provides as follows:
§1702.104. Investigations Company
(a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to:

(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;
(3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or
(4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the use of a personal protection officer.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
Please be aware that providing or offering to provide a regulated service without a license is a criminal offense. TEX. OCC. CODE §§1702.101, 1702.388. Employment of an unlicensed individual who is required to be licensed is also a criminal offense. TEX. OCC. CODE §1702.386.

Posted in Computer Forensics, Computer Security, Laws, Legislation | 2 Comments »

Trend in Licensing for Computer Forensics Continues with New Michigan Law

Posted by rjbiii on June 18, 2008

Post Process has already remarked on a Texas law that implies that computer forensics experts must have a private investigator’s license. Now it’s Michigan’s turn.

Joe Howrie has written an article on a new Michigan law that requires people engaging in “computer forensics” to acquire a license as a private investigator:

“According to the state of Michigan Web site, Michigan House Bill 5274, “the professional investigator licensure act,” was signed into law by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on May 28.

According to the terms of the act, it becomes effective immediately (Sec. 29) and it is now a felony punishable by up to a four-year prison term and a $25,000 fine for a person to engage in computer forensics in Michigan unless that person is licensed under the act or falls within one of its exemptions (Sec. 3(3)).”

The exemptions mentions attorneys, but not staff working under a lawyer’s supervision, although Howrie feels that staff would be exempted:

Presumably, the attorney exemption extends to staff employed to assist an attorney as attorneys have historically used support personnel for litigation. If the legislature had intended that lawyers could only use support staff with whom the lawyers had employer-employee relationships, the employer-employee language from 4(e) would also appear in the 4(a) lawyer exemption section.

This particular law, driven evidently from privacy concerns, seems broader and harsher than others we’ve seen recently, including the Texas law. Questions abound: if I am in Houston, and I use an application to pull data from a server in Michigan, for the purposes of preparing some of that data for submission to a court as evidence, am I in violation of the statute? If I merely hold myself out as a computer forensics professional, do no business in Michigan directly, but engage in “forensics” elsewhere, are there any consequences (minimum contacts and the web?).

While protecting the public and privacy is important…is a Private Investigator’s license really the best vehicle for this sort of regulation? Stay tuned…

Posted in Articles, Data Collection, Forensics, Laws, Legislation, Privacy, Trends, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Now it’s the states’ turn

Posted by rjbiii on October 9, 2007

Law.com posts an article discussing the second wave of rules changes to accomodate electronic discovery.

Waves of state court systems are adopting electronic discovery rules as local lawyers struggle with the costs and uncertainty of e-discovery in an expanding range of cases.
[…]
New rules in Idaho and New Jersey took effect last year, while rules in Indiana, Minnesota, Montana and New Hampshire began this year. Arizona’s rules are effective starting on Jan. 1, 2008. Proposed rules are on the table in Maryland, Nebraska and Ohio. In addition, committees at the California, Illinois and Tennessee courts and the Washington State Bar Association are studying the issue.

E-discovery, it’s not just for the Fortune 500 any more. Let us hope for more than a pinch of uniformity among the states on this issue. It’s already complicated enough to get the matter to trial relatively error-free…

Posted in Articles, Laws, Trends | Leave a Comment »

UK Government can demand decryption of data

Posted by rjbiii on October 3, 2007

So says a new article posted by Ars Technica. What happens if you don’t? Trouble.

New laws going into effect today in the United Kingdom make it a crime to refuse to decrypt almost any encrypted data requested by authorities as part of a criminal or terror investigation. Individuals who are believed to have the cryptographic keys necessary for such decryption will face up to 5 years in prison for failing to comply with police or military orders to hand over either the cryptographic keys, or the data in a decrypted form.

The max sentence is reserved for terrorism cases; all other cases carry a two year maximum penalty. There has, of course, been plenty of criticism:

The law has been criticized for the power its gives investigators, which is seen as dangerously broad. Authorities tracking the movement of terrorist funds could demand the encryption keys used by a financial institution, for instance, thereby laying bare that bank’s files on everything from financial transactions to user data.

There’s some irony present, as well:

Yet the law, in a strange way, almost gives criminals an “out,” in that those caught potentially committing serious crimes may opt to refuse to decrypt incriminating data. A pedophile with a 2GB collection of encrypted kiddie porn may find it easier to do two years in the slammer than expose what he’s been up to.

The intent of the law is, undoubtedly, valid. How it may affect companies’ decisions with respect to housing data within the U.K. will only be seen as events unfold.

[HT: Slashdot]

Posted in Articles, Data Management, Encryption, Laws, Trends | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Will Lit Support Vendors need a PI License in Texas?

Posted by rjbiii on July 17, 2007

NB: Updates can be found on Post Process here, here, and here.

There has been much discussion in the litsupport groups concerning a new law set to take effect on September 1, which, among other things, expands the definition of an “investigations company.”

From 80(R) HB 2388, Here is the full text of this section (the bold font is the newly amended text):

Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts
as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the
person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or
furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information
related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a
state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,
knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations,
associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a
person;
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of
lost or stolen property; or
(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire,
libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts
employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board,
officer, or investigating committee;
(3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts
employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an
individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice
purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or
(4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts
employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the
use of a personal protection officer.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or
furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished
through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the
content of, computer-based data not available to the public.

To parse the language then, the existence of new section (b) means that if you are in the business of: obtaining or furnishing information related to four areas listed above:
A Crimes or wrongs against the US;
B The identity, habits, business, occupation,
knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations,
associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a
person
C The location or disposition of stolen property; or
D An investigation into a fire
Then you are an investigations company.

This is true if the information is obtained through the “review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.”

So the question for vendors becomes: what operational tasks meet the definition of the new section? There seems little doubt that a forensics examination of a network or pc system is covered by the new definition, because forensic examiners deliver a report based on an analysis of and investigation into the content of computer-based data” on private systems.
But what about other tasks, such as the collection of data, the processing of data for review and production, and the storing and display of data for attorney review?

We should not an exception is noted in section Section 1702.324:

This chapter does not apply to:
…(10) a person who obtains a document for use in
litigation under an authorization or subpoena issued for a written
or oral deposition…

Yet that exception seems rather narrow, as it only applies to a particular deposition, and not to a possible trial in general. Furthermore, the exception is narrowed still by text in section 1702.324 (c), which states:

The exemptions do not apply to activities or services that are independent of the service or profession that is the basis for the exemption.

It seems obvious that in order to provide a full range of litigation support services, including forensic examination, then you will have to become licensed. But will all vendors, even those who do not perform such examinations, need a license as well? Stay tuned…

Posted in Laws, Legislation, states, Texas | 5 Comments »