COVID-19: How to Maintain Regulatory Obligations While Working Remotely
The legal services regulatory team at Kingsley Napley explains lawyers' regulatory obligations during times of remote working.
March 20, 2020 at 06:14 AM
4 minute read
So what are some of the key regulatory risks law firms face in respect of COVID-19 and how can these be tackled?
Hard copy documents/removable media
Remote working increases the risk of data breaches and loss of confidential information through hard copy documents being transported and kept at home, rather than in offices with the necessary systems and controls in place. Colleagues should work digitally wherever possible and be advised against working from hard copy documents and minimising the need to make handwritten notes of calls or virtual meetings they attend – typed notes should be encouraged.
If working digitally is not possible, for whatever reason, transporting and storing documents in a locked receptacle should be compulsory. Employer firms should also remind lawyers to keep their working environment as secure as possible, by setting a home security alarm and closing windows when they go out for example. Likewise, the use of removable media to transport data should be discouraged and, where such media is used, the importance of the relevant device being encrypted must be clearly communicated.
Data security generally
Of course remote working introduces data security risks beyond inadvertent disclosure or loss of hard copy papers/removable media. Laptops should be encrypted and firms should have a system to track devices and delete data from tablets and phones remotely if they are lost or stolen. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) also recommends two-factor authentication for email and log-ins, where possible.
Colleagues should be reminded to work in private environments where conversations of a confidential nature cannot easily be overheard and computer screens cannot be easily seen by third parties. The importance of locking computer screens when unattended (even within one's home) should be reinforced.
Likewise if virtual meetings are held, the ability to 'share your screen' through providers such as Skype for Business should be used with caution especially if external parties are involved. Password protected attachments to emails (with the password being provided separately) are advisable.
If colleagues are using public wifi hotspots they should be reminded these can be unsecure and vulnerable to hacking.
Accountability
Being away from the office should not lead to a relaxed attitude to the importance of one's regulatory obligations. Individuals should be aware that they are responsible for the professional judgement they exercise when working at home and that the various discussions and decisions taken on a particular case, for example around disclosure or potential conflict points, should be carefully recorded. This should include reasoning for why they have chosen to act in a certain way, so that they can justify their decisions, should they need to, in the future. The SRA's Enforcement Strategy recognises, however, that mistakes do happen; clear record keeping will help the SRA decipher between honest mistakes and those that are less excusable.
Supervision
The SRA Code for Individuals at paragraph 3.5 makes clear that when supervising others in the provision of legal services, practitioners remain accountable for any work conducted on their behalf. Even when working remotely, it is important that regular supervision meetings still continue to ensure close monitoring of work and workloads to act as a check on standards and the quality of output. Although not in the office, partner visibility is important to ensure juniors feel able to raise questions and concerns and to encourage open and frequent communication channels.
Many firms will have established tried and tested procedures to enable remote working for their employees as the push for agile working in the legal sector has intensified over recent years. Therefore whilst firms are mostly well equipped for the large-scale change in working practices that the COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated, they would still be well advised to remind partners and their employees of their security and supervision policies and procedures.
The new SRA Codes for firms and individuals apply no less stringently during this difficult period and the SRA will expect the highest standards to be followed and maintained even with a reduced workforce or one that is working remotely.
Jessica Clay and Charlotte Judd are members of Kingsley Napley's regulatory practice.
Read more:
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 AllCan Labour's New Budget Steady the Ship? Big Moves On UK Tax Reform and Fiscal Stability
5 minute readMexico's Judicial Reforms and the Implications for Foreign Investors
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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