*/
In a two part feature, Graham Cunningham looks at the new guidelines on Information Security; in part 1, he examines the guidelines regarding electronic devices.
There is good news; and there is bad news. The good news is that there are only two or three barristers on the ‘ICO list’. The bad news, in these harsh economic times, is that you could be spending a lot of your increasingly hard-earned cash on paying administrative penalties to the Government.
To what am I alluding? The following is a true story. A barrister went away on holiday, leaving her home in the care of two plumbers who were fitting a new boiler. She stressed the need for them to secure the premises and set the alarm when they had finished work. When she returned from holiday, her purse and laptop were missing.
Unfortunately, the laptop contained highly sensitive information about people she was representing and it had insufficient technical security to protect such information. This resulted - in this instance - in an undertaking given to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rather than a penalty (‘the list’). However, there is no guarantee that the ICO will continue to be satisfied with an undertaking. Just to put the matter in sobering perspective, the maximum penalty for the worst cases is currently £500,000, and the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) has indicated that its policy does not automatically cover such penalties. In other words, you literally cannot afford to ignore this.
The basics
What do you need to know? Let me start with the basics:
The recommendations
All very interesting, you will say, but what do you actually have to do? Your Bar Council IT panel has drafted “Guidelines on Information Security” which is a splendid read if you have time. Since most of you don’t have the time, I will summarise its “Recommendations”:
Next month, information security for physical materials.
Graham Cunningham, Hardwicke Chambers, with contributions from Iain Mitchell QC, Clive Freedman and Jacqueline Reid of the Bar Council IT Panel
To what am I alluding? The following is a true story. A barrister went away on holiday, leaving her home in the care of two plumbers who were fitting a new boiler. She stressed the need for them to secure the premises and set the alarm when they had finished work. When she returned from holiday, her purse and laptop were missing.
Unfortunately, the laptop contained highly sensitive information about people she was representing and it had insufficient technical security to protect such information. This resulted - in this instance - in an undertaking given to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rather than a penalty (‘the list’). However, there is no guarantee that the ICO will continue to be satisfied with an undertaking. Just to put the matter in sobering perspective, the maximum penalty for the worst cases is currently £500,000, and the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) has indicated that its policy does not automatically cover such penalties. In other words, you literally cannot afford to ignore this.
The basics
What do you need to know? Let me start with the basics:
The recommendations
All very interesting, you will say, but what do you actually have to do? Your Bar Council IT panel has drafted “Guidelines on Information Security” which is a splendid read if you have time. Since most of you don’t have the time, I will summarise its “Recommendations”:
Next month, information security for physical materials.
Graham Cunningham, Hardwicke Chambers, with contributions from Iain Mitchell QC, Clive Freedman and Jacqueline Reid of the Bar Council IT Panel
In a two part feature, Graham Cunningham looks at the new guidelines on Information Security; in part 1, he examines the guidelines regarding electronic devices.
There is good news; and there is bad news. The good news is that there are only two or three barristers on the ‘ICO list’. The bad news, in these harsh economic times, is that you could be spending a lot of your increasingly hard-earned cash on paying administrative penalties to the Government.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier