On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Cybersecurity Best Practices for Legal Services Providers 2019

Released on: Feb. 11, 2019
Running Time: 03:06:58

Legal Services providers are under increasing pressure from government regulators and clients to insure that sensitive client data stored in law firm servers is secure. The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, is taking a closer look at cybersecurity breaches in public companies – viewing them as fiduciary lapses. Legal services providers, like most vendors, are required to adhere to the same security standards as their clients. Recently, several large law firms formed a coalition for sharing best practices. Modeled on the FS-ISAC (Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center), the coalition is called the Legal Services Information Sharing and Analysis Organization (LS-ISAO) , and is operated under the umbrella of the FS-ISAC. Join PLI’s expert faculty to learn more about the technical, ethical, and security challenges legal services face in guarding against cyberattacks.

Lecture Topics [Total time 03:06:58]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:06:16]
    Richard Raysman
  • SEC Regulation of Public Companies and Law Firms in the Context of Cyber Security [00:59:49]
    Mark Melodia, Thomas G. A. Brown, Rhonda Barnat, Christina Roupas
  • Cyber Security Regulations and Risks for Law Firms with Banking/Financial Services Clients [01:00:04]
    Michael R. Graif, Taylor Milligan Crotty, Cynthia J. Larose, E.J. Yerzak, Douglas Bloom
  • How Can Law Firms and Legal Services Providers Combat Cybersecurity Issues [01:00:48]
    Michael F. McGowan, Richard Raysman, Samantha J Himelman, Alexander L. Greenberg

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 2: Cybersecurity (October 13, 2011)
  • 17 CFR Parts 229 and 249, Commission Statement and Guidance on Public Company Cybersecurity Disclosures, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 38 (February 26, 2018)
  • Chairman Jay Clayton, Statement on Cybersecurity Interpretive Guidance (February 21, 2018)
  • OCIE’s 2015 Cybersecurity Examination Initiative, National Exam Program Risk Alert, Vol. IV, Issue 8 (September 15, 2015)
  • 2018 National Exam Program Examination Priorities
  • OCC Bulletin 2013-29, Third-Party Relationships (October 30, 2013)
  • Supplemental Examination Procedures for Risk Management of Third-Party Relationships
  • Guidance for Managing Third-Party Risk
  • In the Matter of Voya Financial Advisors, Inc., Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-18840 (September 26, 2018)
  • SEC Charges Firm with Deficient Cybersecurity Procedures (September 26, 2018)
  • Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Regarding Certain Cyber-Related Frauds Perpetrated Against Public Companies and Related Internal Accounting Controls Requirements (October 16, 2018)
  • SEC Investigative Report: Public Companies Should Consider Cyber Threats When Implementing Internal Accounting Controls (October 16, 2018)
  • In the Matter of Altaba Inc., f/d/b/a Yahoo! Inc., Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-18448 (April 24, 2018)
  • Altaba, Formerly Known as Yahoo!, Charged with Failing to Disclose Massive Cybersecurity Breach; Agrees to Pay $35 Million (April 24, 2018)
  • §240.10b-5 Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices (November 21, 2018)
  • In Re Hartland Payment Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 09-1043 (D.N.J. Dec. 7, 2009)
  • In re Caremark Intern. Inc. Deriv. Lit., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996)
  • Hampden Kuhns v. Equifax Inc., Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws, Case No. 1:17-cv-03463-WSD (N.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2017)
  • Palkon v. Holmes, Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-01234 (SRC) (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2014)
  • In re The Home Depot, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02999-TWT (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2016)
  • Keith Prioleau v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., ARB Case No. 10-060, ALJ Case No. 2010-SOX-003 (Nov. 9, 2011)
  • Kathy J. Sylvester and Theresa Neuschafer v. Parexel International LLC, ARB Case No. 07-123, ALJ Case Nos. 2007-SOX-039, 2007-SOX-042 (May 25, 2011)
  • The 10 Worst Things to Do in a Crisis (and What to Do Instead)
  • Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Regarding Certain Cyber-Related Frauds Perpetrated Against Public Companies and Related Internal Accounting Controls Requirements (October 16, 2018)
  • Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., Form 8-K (August 4, 2015)
  • 23 NYCRR 500, Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies

Presentation Material

  • Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies
    Michael R. Graif
  • Are You Ready for the New York August 28th Compliance Deadline
    Douglas Bloom, Michael R. Graif, Cynthia J. Larose, Taylor Milligan Crotty, E.J. Yerzak
  • It's March 1: The Cybersecurity Goal Post Has Been Moved
    Michael R. Graif
  • How Can Law Firms and Legal Services Providers Combat Cybersecurity Issues
    Alexander L. Greenberg, Samantha J Himelman, Michael F. McGowan, Richard Raysman
Chairperson(s)
Richard Raysman ~ Holland & Knight LLP
Speaker(s)
Rhonda Barnat ~ Abernathy MacGregor Group Inc
Douglas Bloom ~ Executive Director and Head of Cybersecurity and North American Data Protection & Privacy, Morgan Stanley
Thomas G. A. Brown ~ Berkeley Research Group
Michael R. Graif ~ Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Alexander L. Greenberg ~ IP & Technology Counsel, Barclays Capital Inc
Samantha J Himelman ~ Director, BNP Paribas
Cynthia J. Larose ~ Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Michael F. McGowan ~ Metafor LLC
Mark Melodia ~ Holland & Knight LLP
Taylor Milligan Crotty ~ Vice President, Global Information Security, BlackRock
Christina Roupas ~ Associate Attorney, Winston & Strawn LLP
E.J. Yerzak ~ Ascendant Compliance Management
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.