For Pa. Law Firms, GDPR Compliance Is Local, Not Just Global
As law firms grapple with the EU's new privacy law, Pennsylvania firms say compliance isn't just for those with international offices.
June 15, 2018 at 06:16 PM
5 minute read
Businesses around the globe continue to grapple with the requirements of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which went into effect May 25. Law firms are no exception—and that's true even if they have no offices overseas.
Pennsylvania firm leaders and legal technology professionals said GDPR compliance should be a priority for most firms, as it applies to any business that handles data belonging to EU citizens. For firms that are behind in getting prepared, they said, it's better late than never.
A recent survey by Wolters Kluwer found that only 47 percent of law firms were ready to meet GDPR requirements, and 37 percent said they have not prepared specifically for the new regulations at all. How the rules will be enforced is yet to be seen, but the consequences of noncompliance are major: potentially, a fine of 20 million euros or 4 percent of the company's revenue, whichever is higher.
And then there's the matter of why the regulations were put in place to begin with—the threat of a data breach, a disaster for any firm, especially one that has run afoul of privacy regulations in its jurisdiction.
Data breaches are the greatest risk for law firm brands, especially those with a privacy practice, Benjamin Ness, senior manager of marketing operations and technology at Dechert, said at a recent Legal Marketing Association event in Philadelphia.
|What Now?
Ness spoke at the June 13 event alongside Doug Ladendorf, the marketing database and CRM manager at Mayer Brown, and Helena Lawrence, a marketing manager for Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe's cyber, privacy and data innovation practice. To firms that have not yet started their GDPR compliance preparations, they said, ”don't panic.”
Lawrence said to start, firms should figure out what data they have, and what data needs to be GDPR compliant. They should also work with privacy lawyers to determine when and how to ask for consent regarding data use, what to do if there is a breach and what to do if a person asks for their data to be wiped from the firm's systems, Ladendorf said. Firms should be checking with their vendors about compliance too, Ness said.
And that's not just for firms like Dechert, Mayer Brown and Orrick, which have offices in the EU.
“Even for small firms, I think it's really unlikely they're going to completely escape some kind of GDPR analysis,” said Phil Yannella, co-leader of the cybersecurity practice at Ballard Spahr.
Ballard Spahr has no offices outside the U.S., but Yannella said his firm still did an assessment to see whether it falls into the category of “data controller” or “data processor” for any information it holds. Controllers have a more extensive list of requirements under GDPR, while businesses classified as data processors face different requirements.
“For a firm like ours, a lot of what we do could fall into the processing bucket,” Yannella said. For example, “if we have litigation that involves an EU-based company … the GDPR would apply.”
Ajay Raju, chairman of Philadelphia-based regional firm Dilworth Paxson, said GDPR came to his attention thanks to his chief information officer, Ali Sethi. The firm has been making modifications to its data policies and procedures, and sending notices to clients and other necessary parties. Raju said he carried over Sethi's advice to other businesses he is involved in as well, such as his venture capital fund.
Even though the likelihood of being caught in violation of GDPR is lower for U.S. regional firms, “that almost makes it riskier for us,” Raju said. “We're taking it very seriously. While other companies have more exposure, the consequences are the same.”
|Not So New
Ballard Spahr has been working to meet all the requirements of the GDPR, Yannella said, including documentation and communication with clients, as well as educating lawyers within the firm. But a lot of that is just an extension of previous firm policies.
“A lot of what the GDPR requires isn't new. Law firms should have been thinking about how they process EU data, particularly in the litigation context, for years,” Yannella said. “They should have been thinking about information security for a long time.”
Still, preparation has called for collaboration between risk management, marketing, IT and information security teams, he said.
Raju said Dilworth Paxson's GDPR preparations have been no different than those at larger firms, noting that “it's such a wide-sweeping and broad regulation that you have to take extra precautions.”
As a result, he said, it may be a struggle for smaller firms, without in-house technologists and marketing staff, to keep up with the requirements.
“The cost of compliance for smaller firms is enormous,” he said. “A lot of people are probably choosing to do nothing.”
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
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