envelope

Get more Attorney at Work!

Sign up for our free newsletter.

x

All fields are required. By signing up, you are opting in to Attorney at Work's free practice tips newsletter and occasional emails with news and offers. By using this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understand our Privacy Policy.
cloud storage ethics
share TWEET PIN IT SHARE share share 14

 2Civility Q&A

Can Lawyers Ethically Store and Transmit Client Info in the Cloud?

By Mark C. Palmer

QUESTION: Our law firm would like to reduce our paper and physical storage use and costs by “going to the cloud” with our data. Before we invest in training our attorneys and staff, how do we know what companies are secure and trustworthy? We don’t want an ethics violation due to a data breach of our clients’ confidential information.

ANSWER: In many instances, data you are using and communicating with your clients are already being stored and managed with cloud-based technology. For example, your practice management software may be entirely managed and hosted in the cloud. When you cannot email certain documents due to their size, you might be turning to services like Dropbox, Microsoft OneDrive and Google Drive for easy file storage and sharing — they’re all cloud-based.

So, let’s focus on two parts of your question:

  1. Do the Rules of Professional Conduct allow lawyers to store and transmit client information in the cloud?
  2. What steps should lawyers take to ensure the security of the data stored there?

First, lawyers may use cloud-based data storage of confidential information while still protecting their client confidentiality responsibilities. Over 20 state bar associations have issued ethics opinions on this very topic, and all have reached the conclusion that lawyers may ethically use cloud computing, so long as they exercise reasonable care to keep client information and files confidential. Some of those opinions may be found on the ABA Legal Technology Resource Center’s webpage. (Note that it is an incomplete list with Illinois and possibly others omitted.)

As you know by now, especially if you live in one of the over 30 states that has adopted it, ABA Model Rule 1.1 requires attorneys to keep abreast of changes in law and its relation to technology. This means that attorneys need to be aware of the benefits and risks of technological applications and the standards that regulate them. You certainly don’t have to have a computer science degree to know how it all works. You just need to take reasonable due diligence to know it is secure.

Likewise, Model Rule 1.6(c) requires lawyers to “make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.” Such access prevention responsibilities do not end when the information isn’t sitting in a file folder on your desk. The confidential client information transmitted via electronic means must be properly safeguarded, demanding that you employ, supervise and oversee third-party providers with the same reasonable efforts.

Due Diligence

So, an examination of what are “reasonable efforts” to ensuring the security of cloud-stored data leads us to part two of your question. How might a firm best select a cloud-based service provider and what ongoing obligations does the lawyer have to maintain that reasonable care?

When vetting a cloud-based provider, or any technology vendor really, it is important to recognize that best practices and industry standards evolve alongside technology. Just as our technology tools evolve, so must our factors in evaluating the quality and abilities of our hardware and software providers.

Ask the Providers

If you are not familiar with current cloud-computing industry standards and safeguards, you should at least know what kinds of questions to ask to investigate specific providers’ abilities and policies. Ask the company which industry security standards it practices. Find out what type of security audits it will provide and the like.

The Illinois State Bar Association Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion outlines seven non-exhaustive reasonable inquiries and practices lawyers could engage in to select a cloud-based service provider:

  1. Reviewing cloud computing industry standards and familiarizing oneself with the appropriate safeguards that should be employed;
  2. Investigating whether the provider has implemented reasonable security precautions to protect client data from inadvertent disclosures, including but not limited to the use of firewalls, password protection, and encryption;
  3. Investigating the provider’s reputation and history;
  4. Inquiring as to whether the provider has experienced any breaches of security and if so, investigating those breaches;
  5. Requiring an agreement to reasonably ensure that the provider will abide by the lawyer’s duties of confidentiality and will immediately notify the lawyer of any breaches or outside requests for client information;
  6. Requiring that all data is appropriately backed up completely under the lawyer’s control so that the lawyer will have a method for retrieval of the data; and
  7. Requiring provisions for the reasonable retrieval of information if the agreement is terminated or if the provider goes out of business.

Ongoing Duty

As the applications of cloud computing evolve (see more from the National Institute of Standards and Technology if you’re interested), so must our security and compliance inquiries to keep our practices and clients safe. As the Illinois opinion states:

Pursuant to Rules 1.6 [Confidentiality of Information] and 5.3 [Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance], a lawyer has ongoing obligations to protect the confidentiality of client information and data and to supervise non-lawyers. Future advances in technology may make a lawyer’s current reasonable protective measures obsolete. Accordingly, a lawyer must conduct periodic reviews and regularly monitor existing practices to determine if the client information is adequately secured and protected. See, e.g., Arizona Ethics Op. 09-04 (2009); Washington State Bar Association Advisory Op. 2215 (2012).

Along with asking questions, you need to read the provider’s contract or terms and conditions, which are very likely going to be different if you use a free service instead of a paid service. The difference in what could happen to your clients’ information in the event the service is canceled is an example of what could be at issue.

Additionally, some opinions suggest you obtain the informed consent of your client before placing confidential information in the cloud. To that end, think about what language you could put in your retainer agreement to memorialize it.

Bottom line: Cloud-based storage has become the standard method for storing and sharing data. The legal profession, as other industries, must make ongoing reasonable efforts in choosing and reviewing our service providers. We owe it to our clients, ethically and professionally.

About the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism

The Commission on Professionalism was established by the Illinois Supreme Court in September 2005 to foster increased civility, professionalism and inclusiveness among lawyers and judges in the state of Illinois. By advancing the highest standards of conduct among lawyers, we work to better serve clients and society alike. These duties we uphold are defined under Supreme Court Rule 799(c). For more information, visit 2Civility.org, the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism’s website.

Illustration ©iStockPhoto.com

Subscribe to Attorney at Work

Get really good ideas every day: Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch and Weekly Wrap (it’s free). Follow us on Twitter @attnyatwork.

share TWEET PIN IT SHARE share share
Mark C. Palmer Mark C. Palmer

Mark C. Palmer serves as Professionalism Counsel under the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism to facilitate the promotion of professionalism, civility and integrity among our lawyers and judges. Mark is a prior trial attorney with civil and criminal experience in state and federal courts. Additionally, Mark is an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and the University of Illinois Police Training Institute. A frequent writer on legal ethics, legal tech and future law issues, he is a contributor to the 2Civility blog. Follow him on Twitter @2CivilityMP.

Comments