All posts by Paul E. Paray

Electronic Health Records, Intellectual Property, Law Firm, Middle Market Business, Network Security, Privacy, Risk Management

Ponemon Institute: Lost Laptops Cost Billions

The Ponemon Institute’s latest report, “The Billion Dollar Laptop Study,” shows that 329 organizations surveyed lost more than 86,000 laptops over the course of a year.  Based on these findings and an earlier survey that put the average cost of lost laptop data at $49,246, the total cost amounts to more than $2.1 billion or $6.4 million per organization.

Some other key findings of the report:  (1)  while 46 percent of the lost systems contained confidential data, only 30 percent of those systems were encrypted; (2) only 10 percent had any other anti-theft technologies; and (3) 71 percent of laptops lost were not backed up so all work in progress was lost.

At the release media event reported on by InformationWeek, Larry Ponemon explained that most of the cost “is linked to the value of intellectual property on these laptops and the fees associated with data breaches and statutory notification requirements.”   During this same press conference, Ponemon recounted interviewing one woman at a company who had lost 11 laptops in two years:  “She claimed she wasn’t really that careful with laptops because the only way she could get a better one was to lose it.”

It is this disconnect — the value of the information lost vs. the relative interest in the user in protecting such information — that becomes the ultimate challenge faced by most firms.   Employee training remains the front line in addressing this challenge but having employees pay for their lost corporate laptops may actually yield more desirable results.   It would be interesting to have the next Ponemon lost laptop study include the ratio of lost business laptops compared to lost personal laptops, i.e., those actually purchased by an employee.

Electronic Health Records, Law Firm, Network Security, Privacy, Risk Management

IW: CIOs See Smartphones As Data Breach Time Bomb

As recently reported by InformationWeek, a study conducted by market researcher Ovum and the European Association for e-Identity and Security found that eight out of 10 CIOs believe using smartphones in the workplace increases their firm’s vulnerability to attack.  Although these CIOs rank data breaches as their top related security concern, half of the organizations acknowledge that they fail to provide some basic security measures for the use of smartphones.

This report should be of major concern to doctors and lawyers — two groups of professionals that rely heavily on the use of smartphones to manage their workloads.    At the very least, an easily applied security precaution for smartphones should be the use of a strong password that is changed every 60 days or sooner.  Two-factor authentication is preferable.   Users should back up data regularly and not have it remain solely on a mobile device – unfortunately, default settings can have the communications emanating from your mobile device remain resident solely on a mobile network.  Make sure your mobile device is equipped with anti-virus protection and if you receive an e-mail from a company or person that you’re not familiar with, do what you do on your work computer – just delete it.   Use your idle timer feature to lock down your smartphone as you would your laptop.  

If you have an IT support team (in-house or outsourced), make sure it keeps your operating system and server patches up to date and strictly enforces what applications can be used and what connections can be accessed.   What OS is even used may impact security.   For example, researchers have recently discovered flaws in the WebOS smartphone platform that could let an attacker build a mobile botnet or execute other remote attacks.  More advanced security features include the use of remote wiping applications, encryption and data loss/leak prevention tools.  

Notwithstanding the fact it can also place a call, the key to improving your security posture is to respect the fact your mobile smartphone is now no different from any other computer you use at work.  Act accordingly.

Law Firm, Media, Small Business

NLJ: Smaller Law Firms Have Digital Advantage

In a recent National Law Journal article, Adrian Dayton argues that smaller law firms have been much better at jockeying for online positioning and expanding their digital footprint.  Driven by the ultimate goal of search engine optimization (SEO), these firms have been using blogs, FaceBook, Twitter and LinkedIn to get noticed in ways the largest firms are not.

As pointed out by the author, run a Google search for “class action defense”and you will notice that the top listing is a blog produced by the law firm of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell — a firm with three offices and 138 attorneys.  Given  its blog, the firm dominates in SEO despite being relatively small.  Google’s search algorithms, including its PageRank methodology, place a premium on the sort of fresh content found on blogs.  Search results slanting in favor of smaller law firms pretty much run across the board given “the fact that in the entire AmLaw 100 there are more than 84,000 lawyers and only 130 law blogs.”  Not much in the way of competition.  In other words, if you want to get up in the rankings and get noticed by new clients looking for your perspective on legal matters, having a blog has been the quickest path to achieving that goal.

Why does any of this matter?

Well, according to a Greentarget/ALM survey, 35% of in-house counsel had visited a law blog within the past 24 hours and forty-three percent of in-house counsel cited law blogs among their top “go-to” sources for news and information.  This sort of “drip marketing” may take law firms months or even years to obtain an engagement given the strong  existing relationships that first need to be shaken loose.  On the other hand, it is likely the most cost-effective way to get the ball rolling.

Given free publishing tools such as WordPress coupled with inexpensive professional themes and low-cost hosting options, the only real cost is the time it takes to write the blog post.  If you are a competent brief writer, it should take you no more than 30 minutes of your time every few days.   And, as correctly pointed out by Adrian Dayton, this small time commitment is well worth it.  Try it.  You may even enjoy the experience.  Just make sure what you write is not something that will impact a client relationship — after all, that is likely the reason larger firms have generally stayed away from the blogosphere.

Law Firm, Middle Market Business, Network Security, Privacy, Risk Management

ABA: Law firms are Likely Targets for Attacks Seeking to Steal Information off Computer Systems

According to a recent ABA Journal article, the global digital infrastructure is under siege and law firms are to some extent on the front lines given the vast amounts of sensitive data they process and maintain.  Bradford A. Bleier, unit chief to the Cyber National Security Section in the FBI’s Cyber Division, is quoted in the article:  “Law firms have tremendous concentrations of really critical private information” and breaking into a firm’s computer system “is a really optimal way to obtain economic and personal security information.”  Philip Reitinger, the director of the National Cybersecurity Center in the Department of Homeland Security, believes this threat is increasing for two different reasons.   First, he said, “the skill level of attackers is growing across the board.” And, secondly, the nation’s networks of computer systems are becoming more connected and complex all the time, “and complexity is the enemy of security.”  Marc Zwillinger, a founding partner of Zwillinger Genetski, recognized another obvious problem for law firms:   “Lawyers haven’t been as diligent with security as some of the institutions that gave them information.”

After sufficiently spreading the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) throughout, what does the ABA author suggest as a solution.  Well, not much of note.  It is suggested that firms change their culture to be more in tune to security – which will likely need to be done from the top down given most managing partners, according to the author, have little time with sophisticated passwords and things that might otherwise slow them down.   It is also suggested that data be segregated and that encryption be deployed. 

The most relevant bit of information from the article actually was added in the sidebar and builds on Marc Zwillinger’s suggestion that a client’s security is usually more evolved than that of its law firm.    The author’s sidebar comment points out that clients may soon be auditing their law firm’s security.  Given that lawyers have been helping clients with technology due diligence for years now and have also been advising  on the use of audits, it is not much of a stretch to expect one law firm to recommend auditing another firm.  Those law firms in front of this issue will not only keep existing clients – they will also be in great shape to potentially win new ones.   Afterall, what law firm would suggest such an audit if it did not already deploy a sophisticated security infrastructure of its own?

Law Firm, Middle Market Business

Law Firms Feel Pressure From New Breed of Competitors

In a recent article, author Gina Passarella argues that the law firm industry “is moving away from a monolithic provider of legal services – the law firm – to a fragmented service platform where the competition isn’t just a broadening array of law firms, but legal process outsourcers [LPOs] and other non-law firm legal service providers as well.”

In essence, Ms. Passarella argues that the industry is “unbundling” into various constituent parts — from the client (who is keeping more and more work in-house) to the legal LPO vendor (who is doing more and more specialized work ).  And, according to experts quoted in the article, the trend is towards global firms that can do everything and boutique firms that can do certain things very well — with little room in between for other types of firms.  These legal consultants argue that law firms can no longer be “bet the farm” firms and commodity firms at the same time. 

What the article posits as future fact may actually be the a short-term trend towards cost-cutting.  For example, a good portion of LPO competition may actually be driven now by those lawyers who could not otherwise get a job with a traditional firm.   Once the market picks up again, those lawyers may find a more traditional home.    As recognized by K&L Gates chairman Peter Kalis, who is quoted in the article,  LPOs do not provide the same attorney-client privilege guarantees as law firms; and therefore, can never really be a threat to most of the business his firm does.  As he puts it, “they are a gnat in an elephant’s ear when it comes to K&L Gates.” 

Not sure if LPOs are ultimately law firm gnats or very large bed bugs.  What is clear, however, is that a law firm needs to continually reassess its business model – with a constant eye towards improving efficiencies – before it can ever hope to improve its bottom line.  A good starting point is to hone in on core competencies.   There are good reasons boutiques have taken a chunk out of BigLaw books over the past decade or so — all of which boils down to self-awareness on core competencies tied to a focused business plan that is well executed.

Law Firm, Network Security, Privacy, Risk Management

Study: Electronic Theft Costs More Than Physical Theft

In a recently published study conducted by security firm Kroll, findings showed electronic and information theft are at 27.3 percent of total fraud losses while physical theft at 27.2 percent.  Although this is statistically a dead heat, the fact that it is even close is significant for all companies looking to curtail fraud costs.  Interestingly, China had the highest level of fraud, with 98 percent of businesses affected, and Colombia and Brazil came in next, with 94 percent and 90 percent respectively.  

According to Kroll, “information-based industries reported the highest incidence of theft of information and electronic data over the past 12 months. These include financial services (42% in 2010 versus 24% in 2009), professional services (40% in 2010 versus 27% in 2009) and technology, media and telecoms (37% in 2010 versus 29% in 2009).”

There are two common sense takeaways from this recent study — devote the right resources (including training) to avoid electronic theft and fraud and ensure the right security and vetting processes are in place when doing business in emerging markets, especially if your firm holds a good deal of sensitive data.  Although both suggestions may seem obvious it often takes the cumulative impact of these surveys and anecdotal evidence to really push the risk management needle.

Financial Reporting, Law Firm

UK Law Firms Face a Sea Change that May Impact US Firms

As reported in this recent article in American Lawyer, in less than a year, “the UK’s legal landscape will change forever.”   This sea change is taking place given the third and final stage of the UK’s Legal Services Act comes into effect in October 2011 — allowing for UK law firms to accept outside equity investments for the first time.   Specifically,  Alternative Business Structure (ABS) will be allowed to have both lawyer and non-lawyer ownership and management.   These entities will be able to solely provide legal services or provide legal services in combination with non-legal services such as financial services. 

Not surprisingly, UK law firms are busy preparing for this change — a change that will likely reshape the legal profession in the UK and beyond.   Unlike law firms in most parts of the world — including the United States — UK law firms will no longer have an ethical bar prohibiting them from taking on non-lawyer equity owners or managers.  The ethical prohibitions barring non-lawyer equity ownership of US law firms were discussed earlier this year in a post that challenged the status quo.

Come next October, the UK legal community will no longer have several significant barriers to growth and in so doing will reap an immediate advantage compared to US peers.  UK firms will see an influx of capital that mimics what happened after financial services firms first went public years ago.  Coupled with this new capital infusion and partner equity bonanza will be demands from investors for improved processes tied to a reduction in expense.   That’s where the new managers will come in to improve the bottom line.  These changes will likely lead to competitive advantages and a rapid increase in revenue.   US firms will be at a marked disadvantage for years to come on those legal services that can more easily be commoditized and outsourced.   ABS entities may find that success higher up the legal food chain will be more difficult to achieve and will take more time to address.  That is where traditonal firms may be able to obtain an advantage.

In other words, in the short-term, there may actually be some good news for US-based firms competing with ABS entities.  Complex corporate and litigation work may eventually increase — not only will firms be wary of using a hybrid law firm that may sometimes have a perceived conflict of interest, these process/outsource driven firms may not be perceived sophisticated enough to handle high-end business.  Moreover, the “professional touch” found in a traditional firm may also be perceived to be missing from these new UK hybrid firms.  This is obviously all speculation at this point given ABS entities may be part of a yet-unknown corporate structure that takes into account the above potential weaknesses.

All in all, the change that will take place next year in the UK will likely eventually lead to greater billing transparency and stronger competition.   Maybe having such competition will cease $60 empty emails and law firms charging for  nice window views.  It may also prod US state bars to recognize there can be no expanding “business of law” until law firms are allowed to conduct business more like other businesses — which may or may not entail the seismic changes taking place in the UK.   It would be nice, however, if those changes were at least discussed.

Middle Market Business, Small Business

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Changes Begin Today

It’s been six months since passage of the administration’s healthcare reform act — the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act (PPACA).   As reported in newspapers around the country, that means that for those health plans that begin today: 

  • Parents will be able to keep their young adult children on their group health plan up to age 26, regardless of whether the adult child lives with the parent, is a full-time student, disabled or married.
  • Insurance companies will be banned from dropping coverage when an enrollee gets sick.
  • All new plans must offer free preventive services, such as mammograms, colonoscopies and certain child preventive health-care services, meaning plans can’t charge deductibles, co-pays or co-insurance.
  • All employer plans and new plans in the individual market will be prohibited from denying coverage to children under age 19 with pre-existing conditions.
  • Parents will be able to select a pediatrician as the primary care provider for their children.
  • Female enrollees will be able to obtain obstetrical/gynecological specialist services without a referral from another primary care provider.
  • Group plans will be banned from imposing lifetime benefit limits and will start gradually eliminating annual benefit limits.
  • New plans must provide consumers access to an internal and external claims appeals process.

For plans operating on the calendar year, these new PPACA requirements will take effect on January 1, 2011.

Electronic Health Records, Privacy, Risk Management

CA Hospital Appeals Fine of $250,000 for Failure to Report a Laptop Theft

Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH) at Stanford is appealing a California Department of Public Health (CDPH) penalty issued on April 23, 2010.  The fine of $250,000 was levied as a result of a late reporting of a security incident.  According to a September 9, 2010 press release issued by the hospital, the incident was related to “the apparent theft earlier in the year of a password-protected desktop computer that contained information about 532 patients.”  The press release further states:

The computer in question was used by an employee whose job required access to patient information. Even though the employee had signed written commitments to keep patient information confidential and secure in accordance with legal requirements and hospital policies, the hospital received reports that the now-former employee allegedly removed the computer from hospital premises and took it home. The hospital immediately began a thorough investigation and also reported the matter to law enforcement in an attempt to recover the computer quickly.
 
As soon as the hospital and law enforcement determined the computer was not recoverable, the hospital voluntarily reported the incident to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and federal authorities, as well as the families of potentially-affected patients. The hospital also provided to the families identity theft protection and other support services.   Theft charges have been filed against the former employee.

The LPCH data breach is generally considered the most common form of breach, namely one that involves a stolen or lost laptop.  No matter how much training you provide or how many times you emphasize there is zero tolerance for mishandling laptops, there will always be negligent or reckless conduct involving laptops.    On top of all the hard forensics and notification costs associated with such events, California hospitals also now have to deal with significant regulatory penalties for these mistakes.  Thankfully, incidents have been slightly decreasing due to better practices and there exist low-cost insurance solutions that pick up breach expenses/fines on those occasions when an incident is not avoided.

Middle Market Business, Network Security, Risk Management

FBI Warns “Here you have” Worm Hits Agencies and Businesses

Here is an FBI warning that was sent out yesterday to all FBI agents and FBI Infragard members.  It is worth repeating verbatim.

From: HQ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BRANCH
Sent: Sat Sep 11 22:08:33 2010
Subject: Computer Security Alert

A new Computer “worm” attacked several federal agencies and Fortune 500 companies yesterday.  The malicious email messages contain the subject line “Here you have” or “Just For You” and contain a link to a seemingly legitimate PDF file. If users click on this link, they will be redirected to a malicious website that will prompt them to download and install a screensaver (.scr) file. If they agree to install this file, they will become infected with an email worm that will continue to propagate through their email contacts.

Even though we are protected, sometimes the adversaries change the email to look a little different so they can get past defenses.  The Bureau is asking all users to carefully watch your emails here at work and on your home machine.  To reduce the risk of compromising your FBI workstation, be alert for unsolicited e-mail messages and keep in mind the following traits common to malicious e-mail messages:

  • Subject matter related to recipient’s work, possibly containing actual U.S. Government information
  • A sense of urgency to convince the recipient to open an attachment or click a link within the message
  • Convincing content such as upcoming meeting agendas, reports, information on current events or policy issues
  • Seemingly-legitimate sender (government and commercial addresses, including @fbi.gov) using legitimate signature and contact information
  • Receiving an email with just a link
  • An attachment (typically a .pdf or .zip file) or link

Thank you for your assistance and vigilance in protecting the FBI’s networks.

Enterprise Security Operations Center (ESOC)

JEH-HQ