.

Chair, Privacy and Data Security

Chair, Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Litigation

Portrait of David J. Shannon

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security

2022 Cyber Forecast: Ever-Increasing Data Breaches and Ransomware Attacks

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security – January 27, 2022

January 27, 2022

by David J. Shannon

Released earlier this month, the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) 2021 Annual Data Breach Report found that data breaches have increased by 68% in just one year. Over 1,800 breaches were reported in 2021. This number does not even take into account all of the data breaches that were not reported. An alarming number of reported breaches were cyber attacks, including a significant increase in ransomware attacks. As readers undoubtedly know, ransomware attacks doubled from 2019 to 2021, and it is predicted that they will become the number one threat in the data breach field in 2022.

Further, consumer credit reporting company Experian published a recent article in which they identify the top five data breach trends that they see occurring in 2022. They are:

  1. Digital assets will become a much more prevalent target by threat actors. Both cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) will be a rich field for threat actors to attack. In fact, Bitmark, a cryptocurrency company, just announced that it had been the victim of a data breach attack earlier this month.
  2. Experian sees natural disasters playing a more extensive role in the data breach field. As more and more natural disasters occur, there is a related increase in online donations. Such donations include a rich supply of Personal Information (PI) and make charitable companies and those related to them inviting targets for threat actors.
  3. Remote workers will continue to make businesses more vulnerable to cyber attacks.
  4. Physical infrastructure landmarks (like electric grids) will continue to be targeted by both threat actors and state-sponsored criminals.
  5. As online gambling increases, threat actors will learn to exploit it as it grows and cyber security does not keep up with the pace of the growth.

As the past has shown, data breaches and attacks show no signs of abating, and we must all prepare to respond to these events. These numbers demonstrate once again how critically important cyber insurance and cyber security is for businesses to survive in 2022. 
 

 

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security – January 27, 2022, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.