Companies May Be Refreshing 'Bring Your Own Device' Policies During COVID-19
Employees using their own laptops or other devices when working from home may be necessary at the moment, but companies and legal departments may be looking for ways to minimize the rapidly expanding risk surface involved.
July 15, 2020 at 04:00 PM
3 minute read
The COVID-19 outbreak has seen a great many more people working from home, which in turn likely translates to an increased reliance on personal computers, tablets, phones or other devices. A recent program hosted as part of the 2020 American Association of Law Libraries Virtual Conference—"Bring Your Own Device: No Longer an Option"—looked at what that development meant for law firms, but what about corporate legal departments and their organizations?
To be sure, an influx of personal device use creates a unique challenge for companies attempting to safely maintain and account for the security of their data. Frank Gillman, a principal at Vertex Advisors Group, noted that a business rapidly expands the surface of its network when it brings personal devices into the mix. And the number of variables at play only increases from there.
"If I'm working from home, my kids might be on that same computer, my spouse. Who knows who is using these devices? … So much more data is potentially leaking because of shared use," Gillman said.
But the dangers that personal devices could pose for a corporation's legal department may be far more calculated. Tom Gann, chief government affairs officer at McAfee, indicated that legal departments tend to be attractive targets in the eyes of hackers due to the sensitive or confidential information they contain.
"When it comes to a legal department, I would assign some of the highest-level of security risk to those organizations," Gann said.
And the headaches that personal devices might bring to legal departments don't just stop with a breach. Gillman pointed out that an employee conducting work from their home computer might one day be involved in litigation against an employer. Corporate attorneys could find retrieving evidence or discovery material from a personal device more difficult than if it were a company laptop.
Gillman stressed the need for companies to account for these potential logistical and security issues proactively as networks continue to expand. "You have to look at how that impacts all your policies and adjust them accordingly," Gilman said.
But are companies following through on that prerogative? According to Susanna McDonald, vice president and chief legal officer of the Association of Corporate Counsel, she's heard that fellow ACC members are already making changes to their BYOD and work-from-home policies—but not indiscriminately.
"Policy changes are specific to a given employee's job. One size does not fit all," she said in an email.
For example, employees who regularly handle sensitive data as a function of their job may be provided with company-issued smartphones. "This option is safer than dealing with sensitive data through one's personal device," McDonald said.
Other policy shifts may not be as heavily geared toward expensive equipment. Gillman said companies might configure networks to give employees limited access to certain data sets, granting them just enough time to complete an approved task before the window closes.
Meanwhile, Gann at McAfee stressed the value of training, a task that he suggested the corporate legal department could play a role in leading. Whatever preventative measures an organization chooses to deploy, he doesn't expect rolling back BYOD use entirely to be one of them.
"The cat is out of the bag and I don't see anyone putting it back in," Gann 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 AllLatham, Kirkland Alums Land the Top GC Posts—Here's What It Means for Business Generation
10 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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