Corporate Legal and IT Departments Agree to Disagree on Cybersecurity Preparedness
A data breach response survey from Special Counsel shows that corporate legal and IT personnel have very different views on the typical response time and overall cost associated with a cyber incident.
April 21, 2020 at 01:30 PM
4 minute read
An organization's cybersecurity outlook may depend on whether you are sitting in the corporate legal department or at the IT desk. Legal staffing and e-discovery solutions provider Special Counsel released its Data Breach Response survey earlier this month in conjunction with Relativity, and responses indicate that attorneys and IT professionals may see their organization's cyber risk very differently.
For example, when asked how prepared their organization was to deal with a data breach, 87% of the 250 corporate IT decision makers surveyed said their companies were either "very prepared" or "extremely prepared." However, 78% of the 150 corporate attorneys surveyed said the same thing.
Aaron Duncan, vice president of discovery services at Special Counsel, believes that the disconnect likely comes down to a lack of collaboration between the legal and IT departments. While IT departments may have faith that people are deploying proper cyber hygiene, lawyers could have a more cynical view, perhaps having seen that many of their colleagues on the ground don't always observe the best security practices even if they claim to do so.
So who's right? "I think it's closer to the legal professionals in that they see more of the reality of the situation instead of just the numbers," Duncan said.
The time it takes to identify and recover from a breach, for instance, may be one area where IT departments are possibly being overly optimistic. Per the survey, 86% of IT respondents said it would take their organization less than three days to detect and respond to a data breach. Meanwhile, 63% of attorneys said it would take their organizations longer than a business week to do the same.
Duncan attributed the disparity to yet another case of expectation versus reality. IT professionals assume that the information governance plans they lay out are being followed, which would in turn lower the response time needed. However, the survey lists the average time to identify a breach in 2019 at 206 days, with the average containment rate at 73 days, which would suggest that many organizations could still be struggling with information governance.
"Until the corporations out there—companies small to large to giant—really get a handle on their information governance and make that a priority, we're not going to see a drop [in response times]," Duncan said.
Attorneys and IT professionals also differed when asked what they believed the cost per exposed record was following a data breach. Lawyers went big, with 75% of attorneys surveyed putting the cost at $50 per record, a big difference from the 74% of IT professionals who placed the expense between $.50 and $25 per record.
Attorneys may be closest in their estimate, at least based on Special Counsel data quoted in the report that lists the U.S. average at $242 per lost record. It's possible that IT professionals may not be taking into account some of the long-term legal fallout from a breach that are typically the domain of lawyers, such as forensic investigations or breach notification laws and procedures.
The key to bridging that knowledge gap between IT and legal may require more companies to take another look at staff, possibly adding a chief information security officer (CISO) to the roster who can be in charge of dispersing regular updates and reminders from the IT department to the rest of the office. "I think these regular type of awareness trainings, whether quarterly or even potentially monthly, is something that just takes 20 [or] 30 minutes but could be extremely valuable," Duncan said.
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
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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