Clients to Firms: Ask Permission Before Storing Our Data on the Cloud
A new survey from CLOC and the firm of Fish & Richardson indicates that while organizations want firms to ask their permission before moving data to the cloud, that level of communication may not yet be happening.
January 30, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Who knows better than lawyers that there's always a catch? A new survey produced by the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium (CLOC) and the law firm of Fish & Richardson indicated that while organizations are generally amenable to legal service providers such as law firms storing their information in the cloud, most expect for their permission to be obtained first.
The survey is comprised of 76 responses from law firms, Fortune 500 companies and financial institutions. When asked if their organization allowed data to be stored in the cloud by a legal service provider, 82% of respondents—excluding law firms—said 'yes.' But 77% of that same demographic also said that they require notification first.
This could pose both a challenge and an opportunity to law firms, who may have to think long and hard about the most efficient method of obtaining that permission and how to best educate clients on the virtues of the cloud. Beau Mersereau, chief legal technology solutions officer at Fish & Richardson, highlighted the risk that firms take.
"I think that there's some reluctance there to asking for permission, because if the wrong clients say 'no' then you are effectively doubling your storage costs by having to maintain systems on prem[ises] and systems in the cloud," Mersereau said.
There's a chance that many law firms have not yet broached the problem. Last August, Fish & Richardson partnered with the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) on another cloud usage survey featuring 102 respondents, including members of the Am Law 100 and Global 100. While 78% of all law firm respondents said they were storing client data in the cloud, the majority of that group also indicated they were not asking client permission first.
But the CLOC survey notes that many firm organizations would require some sort of notification—so where is the disconnect occurring? It's possible that some firms are still attempting to find the most efficient methodology for retrieving client permissions to go to the cloud, a process that could wind up taking some twists and turns.
"Some of these mega firms have thousands and thousands of clients that, if they don't respond, what do you do?," Mersereau said
Jason Barnwell, assistant general counsel at Microsoft and a CLOC board member, posited that legal professionals will always opt for permission if given the choice, but in practice might prefer a less cumbersome arrangement.
"You end up being burdened with these choices that you probably don't want to stop the world to wait for your response. … Maybe there is actually a more risk-adjusted approach to this," Barnwell said.
He suggested that rather than organizations requiring permission as sort of a general rule, that they instead ask law firms to keep them informed "when there's some truly interesting here," that they should know about.
For now, organizations appear split on how they want legal service providers to go about seeking their permission to put data into the cloud. Among CLOC survey respondents, the majority (56%) thought legal service providers should ask for permission by sending an engagement letter amendment. "Other" was the second most popular choice at 19%.
But no matter how firms ask permission to move clients' data to the cloud, there may always be the risk of getting a 'no' in response. Per Barnwell, attempting to maintain a hybrid approach—storing some client data in the cloud and some on-site—can wind up being costly for all involved.
"When you are pushing firms into that hybrid scenario, you're putting more cost on them that ultimately has to be born by the clients. Again, I'm not sure that people ultimately understand the trade-offs of what they are asking for," Barnwell said.
It may be up to firms to plug any knowledge gaps that do exist as they go about the process of seeking permissions related to the cloud, including emphasizing any potential benefits that may exist from a security or operations standpoint. Fish & Richardson, for example, is building cloud-specific machine learning models to drive insights around litigation pricing and automatically classify and route documents and information as it comes into the firm. Even if some clients are hesitant about the cloud, efficiency has a broad appeal.
"You can't have good machine learning models unless you have good data, and we need to be able to take the data that we have and be able to filter and clean it up. The fastest way to do that is in the cloud," Mersereau said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250