Cybersecurity

This is the second in a two-part series on AI-driven crises. Part 1 examined communications during an incident while the facts are still developing. Part 2 addresses crisis plans, governance and tabletop exercises before an agent acts on behalf of the business.

Identity security has moved well beyond passwords, and legal organizations still defending as if it has not are the most likely to find out the hard way, with client trust and professional obligations on the line.

Some of the world's leading AI companies are spending considerable time preparing for something they sincerely hope never happens: a catastrophic AI-related event.

Here is the uncomfortable truth about AI in law firms: adoption was the easy part. But adoption was never the goal. Return is. And on return, the evidence is starting to come in — and it should get every managing partner’s attention.

One question quietly drives how most organizations approach data. It rarely appears in policy, but it surfaces in litigation planning sessions, audits, IT escalations and everyday decisions: What if we need it?

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence tools has created a new and often overlooked category of legal risk: the erosion of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection.

As quantum machines become more powerful, today’s uncrackable encryption schemes may become trivial to break. Opinions vary as to how soon that moment, so-called “Q Day,” will arrive, but the threat is real.

Not long ago, the operative question in cybersecurity planning was whether organizations needed to plan for AI-assisted attacks. Five national cybersecurity agencies have now answered that question, on the record, with a timeline measured in months, not years.