NYSBA Eyes Mandatory Cybersecurity CLE Credit, Citing Attorneys' Heightened Cyberrisk
The NYSBA approved a recommendation that would require New York attorneys to take one CLE cybersecurity credit every two years. The proposal, however, is time limited, and still has to be approved by New York CLE board.
June 15, 2020 at 02:29 PM
4 minute read
A more dispersed and remote workforce is likely inhibiting just how far law firms' cybersecurity protections can reach nowadays. With more attorneys potentially exposed to heightened cyberrisk, a once-centralized security approach is giving way to one more focused on improving individual attorney's cyber hygiene. And at least one state bar association is moving to ensure its attorneys know how to adequately protect themselves.
Today, the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) announced it approved a recommendation by its committee on technology and the legal profession to require New York attorneys to take at least one cybersecurity CLE credit. The proposal now goes to before the New York CLE board for consideration.
The proposed change, which would modify the New York State CLE board Regulations and Guidelines, mandates that one CLE credit hour under the "Ethics and Professionalism" category be devoted to cybersecurity every two years. The amendment, which does not add any additional credit hour requirements for new or practicing attorneys, would sunset after four years if not reenacted.
Scott Karson, president of the New York State Bar Association and partner at Melville, New York-based Lamb & Barnosky said the NYSBA's support of the amendment was driven in large part by the increase in attorneys working remotely around the state. "Now more than ever I think what most members of the House of Delegates believe, in this era where so many of us are working remotely from home, is the concern for cybersecurity is greater than ever."
He explained that at home, "you don't have the infrastructure you would have working in your law firm office or whatever your principle place of employment is."
In advocating for the amendment, a January 2020 report by the committee on technology and the legal profession also cited the rising number of data breaches among New York Law firms, the need for attorneys to keep pace with more sophisticated cyberattacks, and attorneys ethical obligation to protect privileged client communications. It also noted that New York's recently enacted cybersecurity law, the SHIELD ACT, applies to local law firms, and therefore makes cybersecurity education even more imperative.
Still, not all in the NYSBA were on board with the proposed requirement. In response to the report, The NYBSA's local and state government law section argued that while "cybersecurity for law firms is of critical importance," there should not be a mandatory CLE requirement because most attorneys do not have control over their organization's security or choice of vendors. It also noted that while attorneys need to be educated about phishing attacks, the "first line of defense" against such efforts is email software deployed by the firm or organization.
Furthermore, the section argued that the mandatory credit will take time away from "section-specific ethical education" and could burden those offering CLE credits with finding outside cybersecurity expertrs to provide instruction.
Karson said that the section's arguments were "presented to the House of Delegates and considered and found not to carry the day, so to speak."
He also said the notion that cybersecurity is mainly the responsibility of the law firm or organization did not hold much weight. "I think the consensus was that all lawyers are ultimately responsible for the security of the systems for which they work. It really isn't a defense or excuse that you work for an employer who ultimately may have control over the system. You have an obligation to make sure the system is secure."
To be sure, even if the amendment is enacted by New York CLE board, it's long-term impact is far from assured. Karson stressed that after four years, "In absence of any affirmative action by the CLE board it would sunset and expire." Still, it has the support of NYSBA's president. "Personally I voted in favor of it," Karson said. "I just think that cybersecurity is important enough today that it requires special attention and therefore I'm comfortable with the fact that lawyers would be required to take a credit in cybersecurity."
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 AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Will Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
- 2Legaltech Rundown: LexisNexis Releases Lexis+ AI Mobile App, Hotshot Launches New M&A Training Simulation, and More
- 3Perkins Coie Boasts Diverse Partner Class
- 4READ THE DOC: NY Judge Indefinitely Delays Sentencing in Trump Hush Money Case
- 5US Supreme Court Tries to Define a 'Crime of Violence'
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