Fast-Paced Work and Permissive Culture Make Legal Ripe for Data Mismanagement
A new survey found that legal professionals are more likely to put data at risk compared to other industries. It may be an inherent problem for legal.
April 01, 2020 at 01:00 PM
3 minute read
High-stakes demands and law firm structure may be creating a breeding ground for risky data handling.
The "Insider Data Breach Survey 2020″ survey of 5,000 employees in companies employing 100-plus across the U.S., U.K. and Europe found that 57% of respondents in the legal sector said they intentionally put data at risk. The survey was conducted by Opinion Matters and commissioned by email security software company Egress Software Technologies.
Michael Hamilton, co-founder of cybersecurity company CI Security, said that disregard can be explained by understanding how law firm hierarchy places the needs of high-performing attorneys above some cybersecurity recommendations.
"They are the money-makers, they have a long leash," he said.
The survey also noted that 56% of employees in the legal sector said they or a colleague accidentally broke company policy and put data at risk.
To be sure, legal professionals aren't flagrantly disregarding data privacy best practices. Instead, the fast pace of law may cause some in legal to forgo best practices to meet client demand.
"Because lawyers are so obsessed with being responsive to the courts and clients, that may lead to some bad data hygiene practices," said Blackstone Law Group partner and information security lawyer Alexander Urbelis.
Additionally, law firms' business structure doesn't embrace extensive spending to continuously improve a law firm's data security, Urbelis argued. He said equity partners might be hesitant to purchase and maintain robust cybersecurity tools and provide ongoing training to staff and lawyers when it subtracts from the profits partners share with fellow shareholders.
Still, Urbelis noted that Am Law 100 firms received a "major wake-up call" to improve their data security after the Panama Papers leak, in which law firm Mossack Fonseca was breached and its documents exposing international corruption were released to the public.
While the Panama Papers taught Big Law how important cybersecurity is, according to observers the message hasn't entirely trickled down to smaller law firms.
"It's the smaller independent guys not part of a named recognizable firm; IT is their last consideration, and that's how they get in trouble," Hamilton said.
He added that law firms' trove of insider data held by professionals who lack cybersecurity expertise creates an appetizing opportunity for hackers. "They work with a lot of clients' intellectual property, personal data and details about very embarrassing lawsuits, [which] makes them a bigger target."
While mishaps with data aren't unique to the legal industry, the repercussions are perhaps more lethal, said Egress CEO and co-founder Tony Pepper.
"Where it really affects legal is the reputational damage for law firms if they're communicating client information," Pepper said.
"That trust is instantly broken when the client's information is being shared accidentally with other clients, the impact on legal is enormous and one of the things we're trying to bring into the light," he added.
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 AllLegaltech Rundown: Clarra Upgrades its Case Management Platform, Veritext Launches AI Summarization Tool, and More
How Gen AI Is Changing Legal Work for In-House Counsel
'We're Back': Fourth Circuit Considers Certification of Marriott Data Breach Class ... Again
5 minute readTexas Social Media Law: Federal Circuit Gives Trial Court Instructions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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