Digital Ears Everywhere: Lawyers' Home IoT Devices Stoke Privacy Concerns
Lawyers working outside the purview of their firm's IT department worry they may expose clients' sensitive information when phone calls are made around internet-connected appliances.
April 20, 2020 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
Can a confidentiality agreement or attorney-client privilege be compromised by your smart refrigerator or smart speaker? It's a question that's becoming all the more pertinent these days.
Lawyers say internet of things (IoT) devices can pose a security and privacy threat as more legal professionals work and discuss sensitive client matters from home and hackers adjust their attacks.
To be sure, many are unclear exactly how likely it is for a hacker to eavesdrop on client phone conversations through an IoT device. But Dickinson Wright member Sara H. Jodka said lawyers owe it to their clients to protect their privacy.
"Because I don't know and I can't guarantee that privacy to my clients, I will not have that technology on when I am having sensitive client phone conversations," she said.
To be sure, IoT devices have been known to listen in. Last summer, it was revealed various Facebook, Apple and Google products leverage contractors to manually review recordings directed to their software. The IoT devices are also not impenetrable. Earlier this year, Amazon.com Inc. was hit with a class action suit over hacks of its internet-connected home surveillance product Ring.
Mindi Giftos, a Husch Blackwell information technology lawyer and the firm's office managing partner in Madison, Wisconsin, noted, "There's a big difference if someone listening is doing testing or marketing data versus someone with ill intentions and plans to intercept and use it in a harmful way."
Uncertainty aside, Giftos said her firm has internally and externally shared articles highlighting the potential cybersecurity and privacy pitfalls of IoT devices. She also noted she turns off her personal IoT electronics and Siri when making client calls.
"I don't know if that's overkill or not," she said. "I think it's being mindful of what might be listening and taking steps to turn them off or take yourself away from them when you're discussing sensitive client information."
Unplugging IoT devices when making client calls isn't irrational, but practical for mitigating risk, agreed Stroock & Stroock & Lavan chief information officer Neeraj Rajpal.
"We sent an email out literally a few days ago that when you're working from home, you should turn off the Alexa devices or Google Home or put them in another room. Or better yet, just turn them off," he said.
To be sure, threats posed by IoT devices aren't new. But as more lawyers and staffers work from home in a new environment, bad actors may target those devices, Rajpal said.
What's more, leaving the controlled environment of a law firm and its IT team means some IoT devices scattered around a home could be unpatched and vulnerable to hacking, added Connell Foley cybersecurity and data privacy chair Karen Painter Randall.
Still, should lawyers and staffers unplug that voice-enabled refrigerator before joining the client call? Not quite, Rajpal said.
"There's a fine line between practical and security," he said. "'You [just] need to be a little more careful."
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
- 1Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 2With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 3Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 4Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
- 5Top 10 Developments, Lessons, and Reminders of 2024
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