Law Firm Cybersecurity 'an Imperative' as Clients Make Demands Clear
Firms of all sizes are thinking about how to protect confidential client data.
May 21, 2018 at 12:53 PM
4 minute read
Photo: Shutterstock
As corporate clients fret over the potential threat posed by cyber breaches, Pennsylvania law firms are increasingly making data privacy and cybersecurity a top priority, putting time and resources behind the effort.
Legal software company Aderant this month released its second “Business of Law and Legal Technology” survey, which showed general optimism among law firm professionals. But when respondents were asked about the key challenges they faced, more than 32 percent of them named cybersecurity as a top concern.
Pennsylvania law firms are grappling with the issue—and the cost—along with the rest of the industry. Law firm technology professionals and firm management in the region say the days are gone when clients could treat their outside lawyers' cybersecurity efforts as an afterthought.
Devin Chwastyk, chair of the privacy and data security group at McNees Wallace & Nurick, said the driver for law firm clients has been demands from their customers for assurance of data privacy. More and more, he said, clients are putting data security addenda on their fee agreements.
“Every RFP now requires us to disclose how we protect confidential information,” said Jeff Lobach, managing partner of Barley Snyder. And that requires a greater investment of time and money, he said.
Lobach said clients have never been dissatisfied with the measures his firm has put in place. But if they were, he said, the firm would likely be expected to change its practices to keep the work.
“Cybersecurity as a line item has certainly become a bigger expense for us,” Chwastyk said. “That was inevitable regardless of client demands.”
Cyber insurance is another driver of increased cybersecurity standards at law firms, Chwastyk said, as firms must enact a certain level of safeguards to obtain coverage.
Alan Promer, a partner who chairs the technology committee at Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, said his firm, too, has seen an increase in its technology spend, and that is due in part to security costs. Technology on the whole has become a greater expense for law firms, and since not all of the costs are scalable, the impact is outsized at small and midsize firms.
“It really is an imperative” to stay up-to-date on cybersecurity measures, Promer said, pointing to client requirements. Smaller clients and individuals may not have extensive knowledge and specific demands, he said, but larger institutions often have an entire in-house team dedicated to data privacy and cybersecurity.
He said clients regularly inquire about Hangley Aronchick's cybersecurity resources, which include firewalls, intrusion detection, antivirus systems, encryption and multi-factor authentication. Every year the firm gets a security audit by an outside contractor.
“It's been years, and it evolves constantly,” Promer said.
Over time, he noted, cybersecurity has become increasingly “professionalized” at law firms of various sizes, which are hiring dedicated professionals with extensive technology training to handle it.
“A smart lawyer is only going to engage in the things they're knowledgeable about,” Promer said. “I don't know many lawyers that speak fluent cybersecurity.”
From talking with data privacy professionals at other firms, Chwastyk said it's clear that cybersecurity concerns are common to firms of all sizes. “A lot of the client pressures are the same,” he said. But, he noted, firms are generally more cognizant of the issues if they do commercial work, particularly for clients in regulated industries such as insurance, financial services and health care.
“Even the solo practitioners are worried about this,” Chwastyk said. “They all recognize they have particular obligations under the rules of professional conduct to guarantee confidentiality.”
For more business of law coverage exclusively geared toward midsize firms, sign up for a free trial of ALM's new weekly newsletter, The Mid-Market Report.
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 All'The World Didn't End This Morning': Phila. Firm Leaders Respond to Election Results
4 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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