The Cyber Questions Small and Solo Firms Likely Aren't Asking
Solo practitioners and boutiques may think they are too small for hackers' crosshairs, but tech experts say think again. Small law firms are risking their practice and client's data by not properly questioning their technology providers.
March 09, 2020 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
When Epiq Global shut down services after a ransomware attack, it was a stark reminder that even legal services providers can fall prey to cyberattacks. And Epiq isn't the only one in the legal tech industry that has publicly announced it suffered a cyberattack: In October 2019, case management platform TrialWorks informed users it was impacted by a ransomware incident that left some users without access to their data.
The attacks highlight the risk of leveraging technology, and tech observers say all lawyers should question their providers thoroughly before using any software. But limited tech expertise and IT budgets leave most solo practitioners and small firms less likely to question their legal tech providers.
"At a larger law firm, they have the budget to hire an expert and bring them in-house," said Joshua Lenon, lawyer in residence at small law firm solutions platform Clio. "For solo and small firms you are trying to do it all yourself, and it takes you away from being a lawyer."
To offset that risk, many solo practitioners and small firms will often leverage well-known legal technologies and general software their peers also use.
"My recommendation would be to stay with the companies that have been around and are established and you feel certain they have the protocols in place to protect your data," said Melanie Bragg, founder of Bragg Law and former chair of the American Bar Association's solo, small firm and general practice division.
Noting solo and small law firms' limited capacity to address IT issues, Diane Camacho, CEO of law firm management consultancy DLC Consulting Services, agreed smaller firms have a good reason to stick with mature, proven providers.
"People pop up all the time. If it's a brand new provider and they haven't really tested their software, I don't want the small firms to be their beta group," said Camacho. More mature software has likely previously addressed any software incompatibility or issues, she added.
Still, even established legal tech providers can be thwarted by a determined hacker, and Camacho and other legal tech observers said due diligence is needed before onboarding any tech.
"Ultimately the duty to safeguard client information always rests with the lawyer and you can't outsource that duty, you can only outsource the expertise surrounding that duty. As we've seen with the variety of jurisdictions that have adopted the new standard of technical competency under ABA Model Rule 1.1, more lawyers need to be able to identify the risks and benefits of technology. Ultimately, that's where the buck stops," Lenon said.
To be sure, the adoption of the ABA rule and states adding similar tech competency requirements has lead to more lawyers questioning their tech providers, noted Graves & Allen principal Jeffrey Allen.
But he added that if the lawyer doesn't have the competency, they should hire someone that does. However, lawyers unfamiliar with technology may unknowingly hire an IT professional that isn't well-versed in cybersecurity, he cautioned.
Those that chose not to question their tech providers may also assume they are too small for hackers to target.
"A lot of times what we see is incorrectly they'll say, 'I'm a solo practitioner and no one will hack into me, I don't have anything they want.' What we are seeing is ransomware and other attacks don't discriminate from solo or big law firms because a lot of the attacks are automated," Lenon added.
Bellow are some questions tech consultants suggested solo practitioners and boutiques should ask of their legal tech providers:
- Is there data portable, and what format the data will be exported in?
- Is two-factor authentication available?
- Where are the servers? Are the servers located abroad or in the U.S.? Different data privacy laws apply in various jurisdictions.
- Where are the backups? While tech consultants recommended firms keep their own separate backups, lawyers should know where their backups are stored and how they can access those files during an emergency.
- Are the files encrypted?
- Does the company have certification? Experts said lawyers should ask for copies of the firm's cybersecurity certificates.
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
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
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