A 24/7 Approach to Breach Response Is Not for the Faint of Heart
Lewis Brisbois' data privacy and cybersecurity division recently launched an app that will give users 24/7 access to its breach response team. Providing that level of service requires a strong infrastructure and some occasional late nights.
November 02, 2018 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
Much like your friendly-neighborhood Walmart, responding to data security breaches is now a 24-hour business. A new app from Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith's data privacy and cybersecurity division will give users around-the-clock access to the firm's Data Breach Rapid Response team. This means that when the worst happens at 2 a.m., victims will able to take immediate action that doesn't involve trying to calm their nerves in front of a “Happy Days” rerun.
Since hackers and other bad actors have demonstrated a reluctance to adhere to traditional business hours, the late nights, early mornings and everything in-between approach just might have to become the new model for firms looking to stand out in a marketplace where “response time” is a crucial variable.
“I think in this digital environment, let's just say that victims need responses immediately. So whatever infrastructure you want to create, if you want to be successful, you need to be responsive,” Sean Hoar, chair of Lewis Brisbois' data breach and cybersecurity department, said.
Speaking of infrastructure, the Lewis Brisbois model is built on a team of 20 attorneys spread across each time zone. Working that way has its disadvantages—Hoar can't just poke his head out the door and get a status update from a co-worker—but there are advantages too, some more obvious than others.
Even though the firm's home base is Los Angeles, they have potential clients located in different regions across the country who want someone nearby on the ground. It can also help to have attorneys who speak the same dialect as the people they're advising.
“I know that may sound silly but it's true. When somebody is in crisis they want somebody who they appear to share some commonality with, whatever that might be, and sometimes language is a starter,” Hoar said.
Team members rotate through a duty roster broken down into seven-day shifts consisting of a primary and secondary attorney. The cycle commences at 12 a.m. Monday and concludes at 11:59 p.m. the following Sunday, and what happens in the middle is often difficult to predict.
Should a call roll in during the pre-dawn hours, it is immediately screened through a conflict checker to make sure that there's not a pre-existing interest at odds with moving forward. The lawyers on duty could find themselves on the phone with a client minutes later, with the rest of the evening's itinerary eaten up by conversations with in-house compliance managers and a deployment of forensics experts, navigating consumer reporting regulations and mapping the scope of the breach.
The hours are long and the decisions can be stressful. Hoar acknowledges it's not for everybody.
“The evaluation of who's going to be on the team involves that too. I'm looking not just for people who are really smart with the strength to have a tech background if at all possible and a litigation background so you can assess third-party liability, but you also need what I call an 'attitude of contribution,'” Hoar said.
Fortunately, there's also the team itself to fall back upon. Throughout the breach response process, a matter tracking application helps organize budgets, time frames and task assignments. Even if the initial call is fielded at 3 a.m. by an attorney on-call in New York City, by daybreak the onus could be transferred to teammates working in closer proximity to a client's physical location.
“I want to make sure that we've always got enough depth to handle anything that comes through the door, regardless of the type of day,” Hoar said.
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 AllTrending 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