The Cyber Questions Small and Solo Firms Likely Aren't Asking
Solo practitioners and boutiques may think they are too small for hackers' crosshairs, but tech experts say think again. Small law firms are risking their practice and client's data by not properly questioning their technology providers.
March 09, 2020 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
When Epiq Global shut down services after a ransomware attack, it was a stark reminder that even legal services providers can fall prey to cyberattacks. And Epiq isn't the only one in the legal tech industry that has publicly announced it suffered a cyberattack: In October 2019, case management platform TrialWorks informed users it was impacted by a ransomware incident that left some users without access to their data.
The attacks highlight the risk of leveraging technology, and tech observers say all lawyers should question their providers thoroughly before using any software. But limited tech expertise and IT budgets leave most solo practitioners and small firms less likely to question their legal tech providers.
"At a larger law firm, they have the budget to hire an expert and bring them in-house," said Joshua Lenon, lawyer in residence at small law firm solutions platform Clio. "For solo and small firms you are trying to do it all yourself, and it takes you away from being a lawyer."
To offset that risk, many solo practitioners and small firms will often leverage well-known legal technologies and general software their peers also use.
"My recommendation would be to stay with the companies that have been around and are established and you feel certain they have the protocols in place to protect your data," said Melanie Bragg, founder of Bragg Law and former chair of the American Bar Association's solo, small firm and general practice division.
Noting solo and small law firms' limited capacity to address IT issues, Diane Camacho, CEO of law firm management consultancy DLC Consulting Services, agreed smaller firms have a good reason to stick with mature, proven providers.
"People pop up all the time. If it's a brand new provider and they haven't really tested their software, I don't want the small firms to be their beta group," said Camacho. More mature software has likely previously addressed any software incompatibility or issues, she added.
Still, even established legal tech providers can be thwarted by a determined hacker, and Camacho and other legal tech observers said due diligence is needed before onboarding any tech.
"Ultimately the duty to safeguard client information always rests with the lawyer and you can't outsource that duty, you can only outsource the expertise surrounding that duty. As we've seen with the variety of jurisdictions that have adopted the new standard of technical competency under ABA Model Rule 1.1, more lawyers need to be able to identify the risks and benefits of technology. Ultimately, that's where the buck stops," Lenon said.
To be sure, the adoption of the ABA rule and states adding similar tech competency requirements has lead to more lawyers questioning their tech providers, noted Graves & Allen principal Jeffrey Allen.
But he added that if the lawyer doesn't have the competency, they should hire someone that does. However, lawyers unfamiliar with technology may unknowingly hire an IT professional that isn't well-versed in cybersecurity, he cautioned.
Those that chose not to question their tech providers may also assume they are too small for hackers to target.
"A lot of times what we see is incorrectly they'll say, 'I'm a solo practitioner and no one will hack into me, I don't have anything they want.' What we are seeing is ransomware and other attacks don't discriminate from solo or big law firms because a lot of the attacks are automated," Lenon added.
Bellow are some questions tech consultants suggested solo practitioners and boutiques should ask of their legal tech providers:
- Is there data portable, and what format the data will be exported in?
- Is two-factor authentication available?
- Where are the servers? Are the servers located abroad or in the U.S.? Different data privacy laws apply in various jurisdictions.
- Where are the backups? While tech consultants recommended firms keep their own separate backups, lawyers should know where their backups are stored and how they can access those files during an emergency.
- Are the files encrypted?
- Does the company have certification? Experts said lawyers should ask for copies of the firm's cybersecurity certificates.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit by New York Philharmonic Oboist Accused of Sexual Misconduct
- 2California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
- 3US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 4Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 5African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
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