Cyber Experts: Law Firm Info Security Is Not Just IT's Problem
"Everyone in your firm should be thinking about information security; it needs to be integrated into the culture," said Jill Rhodes of Option Care.
August 12, 2019 at 02:52 PM
4 minute read
Cybersecurity experts had a sobering message for the audience at a recent American Bar Association panel discussion: Preventing malicious cyberattacks is an obligation that falls on lawyers, if they want to protect their clients’ information.
The panel, as part of the American Bar Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco on Aug. 9, discussed the threats of cybersecurity breaches at law firms. The session was moderated by ABA Cybersecurity Legal Task Force co-chair Ruth Hill Bro and included Option Care vice president and chief information security officer Jill Rhodes, Adams and Reese partner Lucian Pera and Silicon Valley Law Group shareholder Stephen Wu.
“The bottom line is, it starts with you,” Rhodes said. “Everyone in your firm should be thinking about information security; it needs to be integrated into the culture. We have to understand and prioritize the risk.”
She said law firms should constantly be asking themselves: “Where is our data, where is the risk that data is bringing in, how are we protecting that data?”
Listing a number of data breaches at major companies in recent years—including Uber, Equifax, Marriott and Facebook—Rhodes emphasized the massive impact of a cyber breach, explaining that the lessons learned from the breaches apply to all businesses, including law firms.
Rhodes said she believes 75% of data breaches are not caused by technology malfunctioning, but the mishandling of the information from the company and employees. She urged businesses to think about cybersecurity at the company governance level, advising employees to guard their client information with more care.
Because law firms often operate as a repository of sensitive client information, they have increasingly become prime targets for cybersecurity attacks. But law firms are relatively unprepared for continually emerging threats, according to the panelists.
“My view is that all of us as lawyers—we don’t care if you are solo or if you’re with some thousand-lawyer megafirm … you’ve got the personal obligation to have some clue how to deal with these issues and some level of understanding of ethical obligations,” said Pera, the past chair of the governing board of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility.
“You’ve got to also have some understanding of every piece of technology that you use,” he added.
In the past two years, the Center for Professional Responsibility has issued Formal Opinions 477R, 482 and 483 that outline lawyers’ ethical obligations to combat cyberattacks. In addition, ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 also states a lawyer “should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”
Pera said ethics rules “require” lawyers to be able to get help with security concerns. “If you don’t have on your cellphone—maybe in your wallet, if you are old school—the phone number of the person you’re gonna call if your laptop gets stolen … then you have a problem,” he added.
As the storage of information has moved from paper-based to computers, and now to the cloud, Wu, a Silicon Valley-based lawyer, said he has observed: “Accessibility of information has expanded exponentially.”
“So, when we’re trying to protect client confidentiality, now we have to think about who has access to that information, from what device and how? And through what network?” Wu said. “It literally could be anywhere in the world.”
Clients also are imposing cybersecurity requirements on their law firms, Bro added, noting her company will conduct questionnaires and technology assessments to determine if their outside counsel take property management to protect client data.
“We assess all of the firms,” she said. “We work with several different firms in my company, we go out to assess all of them.”
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'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
Shareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Old Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
At DataGrail Summit, Legal Leaders Call for Transparency in the Age of AI
Trending Stories
- 1Top 10 Predicted Business and Human Rights Issues for 2025
- 2$7.5M in Punitive Damages Awarded in Product Liability Case
- 3Does My Company Really Need a Generative AI Policy?
- 4'This Is a Watershed Moment': Daniel's Law Overcomes Major Hurdle
- 5Navigating the Storm: Effective Crisis Management (Part 1)
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