Not Just Corporate: Law Firms Too Are Struggling With GDPR Compliance
A survey by Wolters Kluwer found that less than half of law firms are fully prepared to meet the GDPR's requirements.
June 11, 2018 at 12:15 PM
3 minute read
Despite the yearslong build up to the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force on May 25, many organizations are still behind in their compliance efforts. And while much attention has been paid to corporations' compliance shortcomings, a recent Wolters Kluwer survey found that law firms are also lagging in meeting GDPR mandates.
Conducted among 74 medium (26-100 staff members) to large (100-plus) law firms, the survey found that only 47 percent of law firms said they were “fully prepared” to meet the GDPR's requirements. While 16 percent said they were “somewhat prepared,” more than a third, 37 percent, said they have not prepared specifically for the GDPR at all.
Barry Ader, vice president of product management and marketing at Wolters Kluwer, noted that part of the reason why many law firms were unprepared for GDPR was because they thought there would be an extension to the deadline. “Many of the law firms kind of half expected that there would be a delay, and they wouldn't have had to solve the problem by May 25,” he said.
However, Ader noted that the lack of preparation was also a sign that “law firms just don't have the necessary skills, people, and budget to figure out how to handle GDPR.”
Indeed, law firms are in a unique situation when it comes to the GDPR, given that many not only have to ensure their own firm's compliance while also managing and directing their clients' GDPR compliance efforts. Such “double duty” is forcing some firms to staff up and overextend their attorneys. Yet even with added staff and hours, firms can find it challenging to meet GDPR demands.
London-based Squire Patton Boggs partner Ann LaFrance, for example, told The American Lawyer that hiring cannot keep up with the wide-ranging compliance needs of their clients. “It still isn't enough, and there isn't enough experience out there.”
Still, while firms may have a lot of GDPR preparation to do, 60 percent had already assigned a point person, consultant or team to spearhead GDPR compliance efforts, while 72 percent were investing in cybersecurity. What's more, 43 percent assigned a data protection officer (DPO), though they were not required to under the regulation. Such a mandate only applies to companies classified as “data controllers” who determine the purposes for, and the means of, processing EU personal data.
One area where many firms' GDPR preparations lagged behind is with employee training. The survey found that only 43 percent of law firms conducted security and privacy training annually, while 24 percent had done training in the past three years. An additional 15 percent said that while they did not currently train employees, they were planning to do so in the near future. Seventeen percent did not and had no plans to train at all.
Though the survey did not ask if the training was GDPR-related, Ader noted that “the only way the training would have been considered GDPR is if it happened in the past year. Only 43 percent are doing it annually, so I would say for 43 percent, it is possible that GDPR was included.”
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
- 1Jury Says $118M: Netlist Wins Another Patent Verdict Against Samsung
- 2Big Law Media Law Attorneys Brace For Changes Under Trump and Carr’s FCC
- 3Will England Accept that Digital Assets Are ‘Property’?
- 4Congress and Courts Are Considering Litigation Financing: Is Disclosure Imminent?
- 5Bar Report — Nov. 25, 2024
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