.

Chair, Privacy and Data Security

Chair, Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Litigation

Portrait of David J. Shannon

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security

Ransomware Attacks Now Hitting Small Community Banks

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security - June 7, 2021

June 7, 2021

by David J. Shannon

The recent ransomware attacks on Colonial Pipeline and JBS have garnered a significant amount of public and media attention. However, smaller, lesser known ransomware attacks are more prevalent than ever. Recently, two ransomware attack groups, Darkside and Ragnar Locker, posted evidence on the internet that they have infiltrated community banks in the states of California and Florida. 

As many readers are aware, in the past year, a new tactic by attackers is to infiltrate a company’s computer system, exfiltrate data and then begin the ransomware attack. The attackers threaten to post publicly the data that has been exfiltrated to add to the increasing pressure on businesses to pay the ransom. 

While attacks on large businesses make the headlines, the now almost daily occurrences of ransomware attacks against smaller businesses are just as troubling. A recent Verizon Data Breach Incident Report indicates that almost 10% of all data breaches now involve ransomware, doubling the number from the prior year. Verizon’s report also found that approximately 96% of data breaches at banks and insurance companies are financially motivated. Smaller community banks and financial companies may have less sophisticated and robust data security, and data security personnel, which makes them very inviting targets. 

The ongoing onslaught of ransomware attacks has renewed calls by many experts in the field for the federal government to develop better security guidelines and potentially laws that prohibit the payment of ransoms. As long as criminals know ransoms are likely to be paid, these attacks will continue. Until then, all companies large and small should make cybersecurity a priority and ensure they have adequate cyber insurance that covers extortion payments. While the payment of a ransom is incredibly unpleasant, the alternative, having your business cease to function without obtaining the de-encryption key to retrieve your data, could be even worse. 

 

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security - June 7, 2021, 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 to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 © 2021 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.