Corporate Legal's New Cybersecurity Role: First Risk Responders
A survey of general counsel found that legal departments are being called upon to respond to corporate cyber risks and incidents. But it's no easy responsibility.
November 07, 2017 at 01:06 PM
8 minute read
As corporations devote more attention to cybersecurity, many are expanding the legal department's role to cover tasks like third-party risk management. But according to Grant Thornton's “2017 Corporate General Counsel Survey” of over 190 general counsel, that's far from where their cybersecurity responsibility ends.
Over half (58 percent) of general counsel surveyed said they were highly involved in responding to their organizations' data security risks and cybersecurity incidents. In addition, 23 percent said that responding to such risks and events were their “primary responsibility,” up from 11 percent in 2015.
Of course, it wasn't always this way. “When we did this survey two years ago, the CFO among other members of the C-suite were driving cybersecurity initiatives,” said Johnny Lee, principal and forensic technology practice leader for Grant Thornton's Forensic Advisory Services.
But as “breaches become more prevalent and as they represent more downstream risk—regulatory and litigation exposure, for example—we've seen a shift to legal departments taking the helm on the response,” he said.
In light of legal repercussions of cybersecurity incidents, he added, the legal department's participation in risk response can be an asset given the umbrella of attorney-client privilege. Depending on the nature and extent of a breach, such privilege may need “to be attached early if it's going to be invoked, and may need to be managed carefully if it's going to be protected and preserved.”
Lee cautioned, however, that the legal department's cybersecurity role “doesn't necessarily mean they're inserting themselves into insurance discussions or being the primary flag holders in front of the board. But it does mean, vis-à-vis the response, that they intend to be the standard bearers there.”
To be sure, legal departments have their cybersecurity work cut out for them. The majority of general counsel, 59 percent, said their organization was only “somewhat prepared” to handle a data beach, with many citing problems of overburdened IT staff and a lack of incident response management professionals in-house.
Over half, 51 percent, of GCs were also concerned about customer or client data privacy at their organizations, while 42 percent were concerned about the potential for undetected breaches and 38 percent about employee and workplace privacy protections.
Most legal departments were seeking to mitigate these risks through drafting data security policies (72 percent) or adding to policies already in place (62 percent). Moreover, 59 percent were implementing risk monitoring programs in-house, while 55 percent were developing incident response plans, and 53 percent were training end users on cybersecurity best practices.
Lee noted that while the amount of legal departments implementing training and incident response plans might seem low, it represents a significant increase over from the past two or three years, when around 20 to 30 percent of legal departments introduced such data security processes.
Beyond policies and training, legal departments are also turning to data analytics to manage risk within their own organizations, with 67 percent noting they employ analytics to better respond to their regulatory and compliance requirements.
Lee noted that the type of analytics most legal departments use are “descriptive analytics,” which are “intrinsically retrospective” and allow legal departments to “look at things that have already happened to try to discern patterns.”
“So one very common application of this analytics for in-house law departments is contract compliance, for example,” he said. Such analytics can look at “with whom do we have substantial vendor agreements, what are the common terms, what are the renewal periods, what are the discounts that we are able to get, what are the penalties for noncompliance, etc.”
Lee added, however, that a few legal departments are also using “analytics prospectively,” which help predict and manage future cyber risk and can be more helpful to an organization.
Such prospective analytics, he said, can be difficult for legal departments to implement because they require “clean reliable data, consistent reporting, similar reporting formats,” and other streamlined information governance processes.
As corporations devote more attention to cybersecurity, many are expanding the legal department's role to cover tasks like third-party risk management. But according to
Over half (58 percent) of general counsel surveyed said they were highly involved in responding to their organizations' data security risks and cybersecurity incidents. In addition, 23 percent said that responding to such risks and events were their “primary responsibility,” up from 11 percent in 2015.
Of course, it wasn't always this way. “When we did this survey two years ago, the CFO among other members of the C-suite were driving cybersecurity initiatives,” said Johnny Lee, principal and forensic technology practice leader for
But as “breaches become more prevalent and as they represent more downstream risk—regulatory and litigation exposure, for example—we've seen a shift to legal departments taking the helm on the response,” he said.
In light of legal repercussions of cybersecurity incidents, he added, the legal department's participation in risk response can be an asset given the umbrella of attorney-client privilege. Depending on the nature and extent of a breach, such privilege may need “to be attached early if it's going to be invoked, and may need to be managed carefully if it's going to be protected and preserved.”
Lee cautioned, however, that the legal department's cybersecurity role “doesn't necessarily mean they're inserting themselves into insurance discussions or being the primary flag holders in front of the board. But it does mean, vis-à-vis the response, that they intend to be the standard bearers there.”
To be sure, legal departments have their cybersecurity work cut out for them. The majority of general counsel, 59 percent, said their organization was only “somewhat prepared” to handle a data beach, with many citing problems of overburdened IT staff and a lack of incident response management professionals in-house.
Over half, 51 percent, of GCs were also concerned about customer or client data privacy at their organizations, while 42 percent were concerned about the potential for undetected breaches and 38 percent about employee and workplace privacy protections.
Most legal departments were seeking to mitigate these risks through drafting data security policies (72 percent) or adding to policies already in place (62 percent). Moreover, 59 percent were implementing risk monitoring programs in-house, while 55 percent were developing incident response plans, and 53 percent were training end users on cybersecurity best practices.
Lee noted that while the amount of legal departments implementing training and incident response plans might seem low, it represents a significant increase over from the past two or three years, when around 20 to 30 percent of legal departments introduced such data security processes.
Beyond policies and training, legal departments are also turning to data analytics to manage risk within their own organizations, with 67 percent noting they employ analytics to better respond to their regulatory and compliance requirements.
Lee noted that the type of analytics most legal departments use are “descriptive analytics,” which are “intrinsically retrospective” and allow legal departments to “look at things that have already happened to try to discern patterns.”
“So one very common application of this analytics for
Lee added, however, that a few legal departments are also using “analytics prospectively,” which help predict and manage future cyber risk and can be more helpful to an organization.
Such prospective analytics, he said, can be difficult for legal departments to implement because they require “clean reliable data, consistent reporting, similar reporting formats,” and other streamlined information governance processes.
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 AllTrending 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