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
© 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 AllOrrick Hires Longtime Weil Partner as New Head of Antitrust Litigation
Ephemeral Messaging Going Into 2025:The Messages May Vanish But Not The Preservation Obligations
5 minute readSEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
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