Texas Appellate Courts Almost Back Online After Ransomware Attack
The Texas appellate courts are nearly fully recovered from a disabling ransomware attack that hit the Texas Office of Court Administration in May.
July 10, 2020 at 02:54 PM
4 minute read
After two months and two days of dealing with a disabling ransomware attack that disrupted access to their files, Texas' appellate courts are finally seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.
Through a series of file backup systems, the Texas Office of Court Administration was able to restore most of the appellate courts' files, although some of the smaller courts lost some documents, said Casey Kennedy, director of information services at the agency. At this point, Kennedy and his team have restored the courts' case management system. By next week, they aim to fix an automatic link to the courts' websites, so that case filings will start posting online again.
Although it seems a terrible time to deal with a ransomware attack–in the middle of a pandemic—there was actually a silver lining.
"A machine had to be connected to the network to be ransomwared. And so with COVID, we already had a lot of people out of the office. A lot of people took their laptops and went home," Kennedy explained. "We had a lot of people with no need to connect to the network. We did have a lot of people who did not have much impact at all."
Chris Prine, clerk of the First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeal in Houston, said his courts were lucky because they did not lose any documents.
"It was a horrible time—I don't want to ever do it again—but we got back to where we needed to be quickly," Prine said. "We are back up to 99% functioning, of where we were May 7, before this."
In a ransomware attack, cyber criminals infect a computer system with malicious software that encrypts all of the files in the system, preventing the users from accessing the files. The criminals demand the payment of a ransom to restore access to the files. Most ransomware software infects a computer when a person clicks a link in an email or downloads things from a malicious website.
This ransomware attack entered the appellate courts' system through the Texas Office of Court Administration, and spread to the courts and judicial agencies that get technology services from the administrative office. When staff detected the May 8 attack, they disabled a network, servers and websites, which limited the impact.
Read more: Ransomware Hack Disables Texas Supreme Court's Website
Kennedy said he couldn't talk about details of the ransomware attack, like how it entered the courts' network, because law enforcement is conducting an ongoing investigation into the attack.
Kennedy noted it wasn't just the two high courts and 14 intermediate appellate courts that were hit by the attack. The court administrative office also provides technology services for a handful of judicial agencies, such as the State Law Library, State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Texas Board of Law Examiners and others.
A lot is happening to lessen the chances of future ransomware attacks.
Kennedy explained that the court administrative office is working with Microsoft to strengthen its computer security methods. For example, the agency will roll out two-factor authentication to the courts. Another new protection system can monitor all of the computers in the network for malware and delete it before it does harm, Kennedy said.
For Texas Supreme Court Clerk Blake Hawthorne, the pandemic was the worst time to deal with the cyber attack.
"This is the most difficult thing I have had to deal with as the clerk of the Supreme Court," said Hawthorne, who is comparing this experience to his past 15 years of service. "It was frustrating to every one to not have access to things, but we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel."
Hawthorne said while the case management system was still down, clerks used eFileTexas.gov, the statewide electronic filing system, to upload new appellate opinions and serve them on litigants. The public could still access filings through re:SearchTX, the statewide court document system.
Once the court administrative office restored the appellate courts' case management system, appellate clerks spent long hours on nights and weekends manually entering filings spanning back to May 8 in the system, Hawthorne said. Now they are caught up.
Hawthorne said, "It worked remarkably well, considering what we were facing."
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 AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
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