ARCHIVED CONTENT
You are viewing ARCHIVED CONTENT released online between 1 April 2010 and 24 August 2018 or content that has been selectively archived and is no longer active. Content in this archive is NOT UPDATED, and links may not function.Extract from article by Craig Ball
Corporate clients are making outside counsel undergo security audits and requiring their lawyers institute operational and technical measures to protect company confidential information. These measures include encryption in transit, encryption at rest, access controls, extensive physical security, incident response capabilities, cyber liability insurance, industry (i.e., ISO) certifications and compulsory breach reporting. For examples of emerging ‘standards,’ look at the Model Information Protection and Security Controls for Outside Counsel Possessing Company Confidential Information lately promulgated by the Association of Corporate Counsel.
Forcing outside counsel to harden their data bulwarks is important and overdue; but, it’s also disruptive and costly. Many small firms will find it more difficult to compete with legal behemoths. Savvier small firms, nimbler in their ability to embrace cybersecurity, will frame it as a market differentiator. At the end of the day, firms big and small must up their game in terms of protecting sensitive data.
Enhanced cybersecurity is a rising tide that floats all boats.
But, let me reveal who’s likely to get swamped by this rising tide: requesting parties (or, as corporations call them “plaintiffs’ lawyers”), and their experts and litigation support providers. Requesting parties and others in the same boat will find themselves grossly unprepared to supply the rigorous cybersecurity and privacy protections made a condition of discovery.
Read the complete article at Cybersecurity a Pain Point for Plaintiffs
