Legal Tech Companies Shouldn't Rely on Rebranding After a Cyberattack
Crisis managers and marketers say legal tech companies can't downplay a cyberattack by rebranding. Instead, being transparent and open is essential to gaining and maintaining clients.
March 18, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Announcing a cyberattack isn't a milestone celebrated by any legal tech company. But cyber incidents occur in legal tech, like any other industry.
Still, instead of rebranding and distancing itself from the incident, legal tech marketers and crisis management professionals recommended legal tech companies who suffered an attack take a different approach.
"In general, I think the most important thing that any company can do under these circumstances is to be transparent," said Cathy Kenton, co-founder of marketing provider Legal Tech Media Group.
Kenton and other communication professionals stressed legal tech companies should first take steps to fully understand what and how data was impacted. As tech experts confirm aspects of the incident during a forensic investigation and applicable legally required notifications are made, the company should provide details to clients.
Leah Presser, a content and copy writer for legal tech companies, said the status updates should be crafted to foster trust and reshape public perception, including not "hiding behind the company logo," she said. Instead, external communication should come from a higher-up in the organization.
For companies that can't stomach bad press and upset clients after a cyberattack, rebranding is the last solution any company should consider, sources said.
Kenton noted legal tech companies' clientele is less receptive to rebranding. "We are populated with cynics; lawyers and legal professionals are taught to be cynical and question and look for chinks in the armor. Trying to overcome that with rebranding is like putting lipstick on a pig. Someone is going to find out about it and the press is going to go after it," she said.
Indeed, sometimes a company can only improve existing problems and develop new solutions without ignoring previous mishaps. When Assembly Software released its legal case management platform Needles Neos last week, it stressed the new browser-based platform wasn't a reiteration of its case management platform TrialWorks, which went offline last October after a ransomware incident. Though Needles Neos combines TrialWorks' litigation features and Needles' workflow management capabilities, Neos was in development for two years, said Assembly Software CEO Ryan Pakter.
However, Assembly Software did address and adjust TrialWorks' infrastructure after the cyberattack last year, the company noted. Notably, it shifted TrialWorks' infrastructure and customer files, databases and desktops to Microsoft Azure Cloud Services. The migration was one of various initiatives the company took to "improve the security and disaster recovery of our hosting environment, to protect us from cybercrime attacks, such as the ransomware incident which took place this past October," wrote Assembly Software chief technology officer Jim Garrett in an email.
To be sure, rebranding also loses valuable "online branding equity," noted Gina Rubel, founder of legal marketing and law firm public relations firm Furia Rubel Communications Inc, which may prove futile when a law firm vets a product during procurement and discovers the company's cybersecurity history anyway.
It's best, sources said, to remain transparent and issue consistent and timely messages during and post-incident. A legal tech company can also shift the narrative to highlight the insights and experience it gained, Kenton noted.
"Once a company has gone through an incident and comes through the other side they're probably a better company to do business with. They're actually learning where to look for weaknesses and have their systems evaluated."
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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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