Privacy Risk Top of Mind for Law Firms Considering Russian, Chinese Tech
Legal liabilities could follow if law firms store clients' data in software developed by companies linked to government spying.
December 19, 2019 at 11:00 AM
3 minute read
The U.S. government's move to ban the use of antivirus platform Kaspersky Lab in its agencies or adding telecom giant Huawei to its list of entities that have been involved in activities "contrary to the national security," may give some law firms pause when considering whether to use the same technology.
But that doesn't mean such tech providers or platforms are completely blacklisted. Law firms, like corporations, will weigh the potential risk of storing sensitive client data on such platforms and consider alternative tech developed in countries with less-intrusive governments.
Philadelphia-headquartered law firm Fox Rothschild, for instance, doesn't have an "outright prohibition" against using software developed in China or Russia, said the firm's chief privacy officer and co-chair of its privacy and data security practice Mark McCreary.
Instead, the firm deploys third-party experts to perform an extensive vetting process of all software the law firm is considering. The process includes checking for any cybersecurity or data-sharing risks and ensuring client's data is stored in jurisdictions clients are comfortable with, he noted.
"If you take a software vendor that is based in France, we would still do the same due diligence we would do with any company," he said. Many clients are apprehensive about storing their data outside of the U.S. or losing control of their data, McCreary said, adding that nation-states Russia and China aren't ideal places to store data because lawyers can't ensure the government won't access their data.
But after noting Fox Rothschild represents many Russian and Chinese companies, McCreary said an outright ban of tech from Russia or Chinese isn't necessary given the firm's thorough evaluations. Still, the heightened cybersecurity concerns aren't lost on the firm.
"We are mindful of it, especially with Huawei and Kaspersky Lab, there's a reason why people in cyber defense are concerned about it," McCreary said.
He also noted the firm has declined to purchase Huawei equipment and hasn't needed any software that was exclusively produced in Russia or China.
For the law firms that do decide to leverage tech made in Russia or China, if client data is hacked, they could be held liable, one lawyer noted.
"If it comes out there are issues raised by hiring a Russian software or Chinese software company for example and it leads to illegal acquisition of data, I think there's serious questions of liability, given the concern presently with using tech from those countries," said Peter Toren, an IP solo practitioner and former prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice's computer crime and intellectual property section.
However, if a law firm rigorously evaluates a platform's cybersecurity risks and precautions, if a hack occurs, the firm could have a strong argument that they did their due diligence, Toren added.
For CI Security founder and CISO Mike Hamilton, even if the probability of a cyber intrusion is low, the firm should err on the side of caution.
"Even if the likelihood is very small but the impact is so high it could put you out of business, you should make the decision to buy something else," Hamilton advised.
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
© 2025 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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