Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Safeguarding Client Data: An Attorney's Duty to Provide 'Reasonable' Security
Confidential data in computers and information systems, including those used by attorneys and law firms, faces greater security threats today than ever before. They take a variety of forms, ranging from email phishing scams and social engineering attacks to sophisticated technical exploits resulting in long-term intrusions into law firm networks. They also include lost or stolen laptops, tablets, smartphones and USB drives, as well as inside threats — malicious, untrained, inattentive, and even bored personnel. These threats are a particular concern to attorneys because of their ethical duties of competence and confidentiality.
Effective cybersecurity requires an ongoing, risk-based, comprehensive process that addresses people, policies and procedures, and technology, including training. Effective security also requires an understanding that security is everyone's responsibility and constant security awareness by all users of technology.
Duty to Safeguard
Attorneys have ethical and common law duties to take competent and reasonable measures to safeguard information relating to clients and also often have contractual and regulatory duties to protect confidential information.
Ethics Rules
Several ethics rules in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and state Rules of Professional Conduct have particular application to protection of client information, including competence (Rule 1.1), communication (Rule 1.4), confidentiality of information (Rule 1.6) and supervision (Rules 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3).
Model Rule 1.1. Competence covers the general duty of competence. It provides that “a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.” In 2012, accepting the recommendations of the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20, the ABA amended the Comment to Rule 1.1 to make explicit that competence includes keeping abreast of “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Pennsylvania has adopted this addition.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?