Access Denied: Data Centers' 'No-Entry' Policies May Benefit Law Firms
Despite some concerns over data centers implementing restricted access protocols due to COVID-19, many say law firm data is in better hands with limited access.
April 29, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Data centers are doing their part to stem COVID-19 spread by implementing no-entry policies to limit exposure to the contagious virus. Those efforts can leave law firms without direct access to their data. But observers say their data is likely still far safer than if it were hosted at a firm's office.
Starting March 23, international data center Equinix announced its no-entry policies for its U.K., Spain, France, Germany and Italy locations. Visitors, customers, customers' contractors and non-critical Equinix employees and vendors are barred from accessing its offices for anything other than critical and essential work. Only clients with "special permissions" and government-issued critical infrastructure status will be allowed to schedule a visit for "critical and essential work," which the data center didn't define in its blog post.
Equinix pointed to its remote management, installation and troubleshooting support service as a tool clients can use while its no-entry policy, outside of Asia-Pacific, is effective "until further notice."
Steve Cairns, chief technology officer of legal outsource services provider Exigent, argued law firms are better off leveraging data centers with restrictive access.
"By preventing access I think it happens to add another layer of protection," he said. "In fact, in some ways you may feel it's a safer environment because you don't have other companies allowing their staff in that may breach data."
To be sure, most data centers previously limit who and where someone can access their buildings, noted Cairns and Bell Nunnally & Martin partner Jared Hays.
"Even in normal times, there's really mostly restrictive access," said Hays, whose real estate practice includes transactions involving data centers. He noted most data centers require several levels of approval and security checks, visitor badges and escorted walks to the final destination.
Still, a new no-entry policy should be checked against the client's contract and local statutes regarding limiting access, Hays added.
"There could be liability for a provider in these types of restrictions. I think it's important from the provider's perspective that they word their policies carefully and try to limit the amount they are restricting access to what is only necessary," he said.
While legal rights may vary per jurisdiction and contract, Hays said clients' data doesn't face heightened risk when data centers limit client access. Many cyber risk surveillance and mitigation tools are available to data center employees' remotely, he noted.
However, new restrictions and rearranged schedules could eventually lead to malfunctions, Hays warned.
"Where I would be concerned [is] when we are having to delay preventive maintenance and delay inspections. If we are not checking, our hardware might have problems down the road." He added, "If you put that stuff off too long, the risk of electrical and mechanical failure increases because it's not supposed to operate so long without that maintenance."
Still, Cairns argued data centers further restricting access, and encouraging non-critical clients to leverage a portal to remotely assist them, is a practice that will likely outlive any stay-at-home mandate.
"Like Amazon Web Services, the security, fire prevention and air conditioning, we give you a view into it with a portal," he said. "Data centers see that as a model going forward that moves the needle a little more."
However, some law firms may struggle with letting go of the access.
"If you are still old school thinking and you think your IT should manage everything in that building those should be the companies that are worried because you may have to relinquish some of that control," Cairns 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 AllLegal Leaders See AI's Multitude of Uses as Both Blessing and Curse
Lawyers Are Adopting Gen AI Five Times Faster Than the Cloud
Snowflake Faces Avalanche of Federal Lawsuits Over Massive Data Breach
DOJ, 8 State AGs Sue RealPage for Alleged Sherman Act Violations in Algorithmic Pricing Scheme
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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