.

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security

Vermont Continues Its Response to Department of Labor Data Breach

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security - February 10, 2021

February 10, 2021

by David J. Shannon

Last week, Vermont’s Department of Labor mailed out tens of thousands of tax forms to Vermont residents. The forms were being sent to unemployment insurance recipients. However, as a result of numerous issues with their computer system, thousands of residents received incorrect 1099 forms. These individuals will now receive corrected copies as well as data breach notification letters. 

Vermont’s labor department is still trying to determine exactly what happened and how many people were affected. At this time, approximately 25,000 to 45,000 people are likely to have received the wrong forms. At a recent state legislator meeting, state senators indicated that the antiquated computer system was partly to blame for the data breach. The labor department’s outdated systems include an older mainframe and software used to combine data from multiple programs. 

The use of older computer systems that have not been properly updated, patched or replaced is an ongoing cyber security risk for municipalities, smaller businesses and healthcare providers. In this instance, cells on a spreadsheet appear to have been moved or incorrectly used, and unemployment insurance claimants received letters with their first name and address, but someone else’s last name. The recipients also were provided an incorrect social security number.  The mailing of individual social security numbers to other individuals is especially troubling considering that this personal information could be used for identity theft. 

The incident once again demonstrates that, despite all the talk about ransomware, data breaches still can occur as a result of human error,  antiquated computer systems and other reasons. To reduce risk, businesses and governmental agencies should continually look to improve and update their systems and to ensure that they have proper cyber insurance. 

 

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security - February 10, 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 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.