Cybersecurity Readiness — Questions 1–5 Q1. Is MFA required for your firm's email, remote access, and important business applications? MFA is required for email, remote access, and all important business applications. MFA protects email and remote access, but some important applications are not covered. MFA is used for only selected accounts or applications. MFA is not required for firm email, remote access, or important applications. Not Sure
Q1. Is MFA consistently enforced across all offices, cloud applications, privileged accounts, and remote access, with exceptions monitored? MFA is enforced across offices, cloud applications, remote access, and privileged accounts; exceptions are monitored. MFA covers nearly all required systems, but some exceptions are not consistently monitored. MFA is enforced for selected systems or offices, without consistent enterprise coverage. There is no organization-wide MFA enforcement standard. Not Sure
Q2. Is employee access promptly removed when someone leaves the firm? Departing employees have their individual accounts and access removed promptly under a consistent process. Access is usually removed promptly, but some applications or external accounts require manual follow-up. Access removal depends on informal notification and can be delayed. There is no established process to remove departing employees' access. Not Sure
Q2. Does your firm have a standardized process for granting, reviewing, changing, and removing access across systems and offices? A standardized access lifecycle process grants, reviews, changes, and removes access across all systems and offices. Standard procedures exist, but periodic reviews or selected systems are not fully integrated. Access changes rely on manual coordination and inconsistent reviews between offices. There is no standardized process for granting, reviewing, and removing access. Not Sure
Q3. Are administrator accounts limited to your IT provider or designated personnel? Only designated personnel or the IT provider use separate administrator accounts. Administrator access is limited to designated people, but separate accounts are not used consistently. Several employees retain administrator rights beyond their normal responsibilities. Administrator privileges are broadly available without defined restrictions. Not Sure
Q3. Are privileged accounts separated, restricted, monitored, and periodically reviewed across the organization? Privileged accounts are separated, restricted, monitored, and periodically reviewed across the firm. Privileged access is restricted, but monitoring or recurring reviews are incomplete. Some privileged accounts remain shared, unreviewed, or used for daily work. There is no consistent privileged-access restriction or oversight process. Not Sure
Q4. Do all firm-owned computers and servers have centrally managed security protection? Centrally managed security protection covers all firm computers and servers. Most firm computers and servers are covered, with a few known exceptions. Only some computers have security protection, or coverage is not centrally managed. The firm has no established centrally managed computer and server protection. Not Sure
Q4. Is endpoint detection and response consistently deployed and monitored across workstations, servers, and offices? Managed endpoint detection and response covers and is monitored across workstations, servers, and offices. EDR covers most assets, but selected servers, offices, or monitoring processes remain outside scope. Endpoint protection is fragmented or inconsistently monitored across the firm. There is no established enterprise endpoint detection and response capability. Not Sure
Q5. Is someone responsible for monitoring your firm's computers, email, and systems for suspicious activity? A named internal team or outside provider monitors computers, email, and important systems. A responsible team or provider reviews alerts, but not all important systems are covered. Monitoring relies mainly on occasional manual checks or vendor notifications. No one is assigned to monitor suspicious activity across firm systems. Not Sure
Q5. Does your firm centrally monitor and correlate security activity across endpoints, networks, identity systems, email, and cloud platforms? Security activity from endpoints, networks, identities, email, and cloud systems is centrally monitored and correlated. Central monitoring exists, but one or more important telemetry sources are not consistently correlated. Teams review separate alert sources without consistent cross-system investigation. There is no established central monitoring and correlation process. Not Sure
Cybersecurity Readiness — Questions 6–10 Q6. If a cyberattack begins overnight or on a weekend, will someone receive and investigate the alert? Yes. Our internal team or outside security provider monitors and investigates alerts 24/7. Alerts are monitored during business hours, with limited after-hours coverage. Someone may receive alerts after hours, but investigation and escalation are not consistently defined. No. We do not have an established after-hours security alert response process. Not Sure
Q6. Does your firm maintain 24/7 security monitoring with documented escalation, investigation, and response responsibilities? Yes. Security alerts are monitored and investigated 24/7 under documented escalation and response procedures. We have 24/7 monitoring, but escalation or response procedures are incomplete or inconsistently tested. Monitoring is primarily business-hours-based or limited to certain systems. We do not have an established 24/7 security monitoring and response capability. Not Sure
Q7. Does your firm know who to contact and what to do immediately if a computer or account is compromised? The firm has named contacts and can promptly disable accounts, isolate devices, and engage its response provider. Response contacts are known, but containment steps or after-hours responsibilities are incomplete. Staff generally call the IT provider, but immediate containment actions are not defined. The firm has no established contacts or immediate actions for a suspected compromise. Not Sure
Q7. Can designated personnel promptly isolate affected systems, disable accounts, coordinate response, and preserve evidence? Authorized responders can isolate systems, disable accounts, preserve evidence, and coordinate incidents under tested procedures. Response authority and procedures exist, but some actions or coordination paths are not tested. Containment depends on ad hoc approvals or external coordination that may delay action. There is no established process to authorize and execute urgent containment. Not Sure
Q8. Are your firm's files and critical systems backed up, with copies protected from ransomware? Critical files and systems are backed up, with protected recovery copies isolated or immutable. Critical data is backed up, but isolation or immutability is not consistent across all copies. Backups exist for some systems, but ransomware protection is limited or informal. The firm has no established backup protection for its critical files and systems. Not Sure
Q8. Are critical workloads protected by isolated or immutable backups with documented recovery dependencies? Critical workloads have isolated or immutable backups with documented recovery dependencies. Most critical workloads have protected copies, but some dependencies or protections are not documented. Backup copies exist, but isolation, immutability, or recovery dependencies are inconsistent. Critical workloads do not have an established protected backup strategy. Not Sure
Q9. Has your firm successfully restored important files or systems from backup during the past year? Important files and systems were successfully restored in a documented test within the past year. Important files were restored, but a full critical-system recovery was not tested. Backups are checked for completion, but restoration has rarely been attempted. No backup restoration has been tested in the past year. Not Sure
Q9. Has your firm tested recovery of critical systems and business operations against defined recovery objectives within the past year? Critical operations were recovered in a documented exercise against defined recovery objectives within the past year. Recovery testing covered major systems, but not all dependencies or defined objectives. Only selected files or applications were restored without testing operational recovery. Critical-system and operational recovery have not been tested within the past year. Not Sure
Q10. Are computers, servers, and network equipment regularly updated to address security vulnerabilities? Firm computers, servers, and network equipment receive regularly tracked security updates. Most devices are patched regularly, with some overdue or unmanaged exceptions. Updates are performed irregularly or only when a problem is reported. The firm has no established process for security updates. Not Sure
Q10. Does your firm use a documented, risk-based vulnerability and patch management process across its technology environment? Risk-based vulnerability scanning, remediation ownership, and patch tracking operate across the environment. A documented process exists, but some assets or remediation targets are not consistently covered. Patching occurs regularly in some areas without risk-based prioritization or enterprise visibility. There is no documented organization-wide vulnerability and patch management process. Not Sure
Cybersecurity Readiness — Questions 11–15 Q11. Does your firm have safeguards to reduce the risk of confidential client information being sent to the wrong person or outside the firm? The firm uses defined safeguards to restrict or detect inappropriate sharing of confidential client information. Safeguards cover common email and file-sharing channels, but some transfer methods are not covered. Protection depends mainly on employee judgment or manual review. The firm has no established safeguards for unauthorized disclosure of confidential client information. Not Sure
Q11. Does your firm classify sensitive information and use controls to monitor or restrict unauthorized data transfers across email, cloud, and other channels? Sensitive information is classified and unauthorized transfers are monitored or restricted across email, cloud, and other channels. Classification and transfer controls exist, but some data types or channels are not covered. Selected safeguards exist without consistent classification or cross-channel coverage. There is no established classification or unauthorized-transfer control process. Not Sure
Q12. Has your firm reviewed the security responsibilities of its primary IT provider and other critical technology vendors? The firm reviews security responsibilities and protections for its IT provider and critical vendors periodically. The primary IT provider has been reviewed, but other critical vendors are not consistently covered. Vendor security is discussed informally, without documented responsibilities or follow-up. The firm has not reviewed cybersecurity responsibilities for its critical providers. Not Sure
Q12. Does your firm formally assess and periodically reassess cybersecurity risks associated with critical vendors and outsourced services? Critical vendors undergo documented initial and recurring cyber risk reviews with assigned follow-up. Formal reviews cover major vendors, but reassessment or follow-up is inconsistent. Vendor security is considered mainly at onboarding or when concerns arise. There is no formal process to assess critical third-party cybersecurity risks. Not Sure
Q13. Does your firm have a written plan identifying whom to contact and what to do during a cybersecurity incident? A written incident plan identifies contacts, decisions, responsibilities, and response actions. A written plan exists, but some contacts, roles, or response steps are outdated. The firm relies on informal instructions or its IT provider rather than a written plan. The firm has no written cybersecurity incident response plan. Not Sure
Q13. Does your firm maintain and exercise a documented incident response plan covering technical, legal, executive, and external communications? A documented incident plan is exercised and integrates technical, legal, executive, and external communications. An incident plan exists, but some communications or exercises are incomplete. Response procedures exist within teams but are not coordinated or regularly exercised. There is no organization-wide documented and exercised incident response plan. Not Sure
Q14. Has your firm reviewed its cyber insurance coverage and incident reporting requirements during the past year? Cyber insurance coverage, reporting deadlines, and response contacts were reviewed in the past year. Coverage was reviewed, but reporting requirements or approved response contacts remain unclear. The firm has a policy but has not recently confirmed its cyber incident requirements. The firm has not reviewed cyber insurance coverage or incident reporting requirements. Not Sure
Q14. Has your firm coordinated cyber insurance requirements, notification obligations, and approved response resources with its incident response process? Insurance notification terms and approved response resources are integrated into tested incident procedures. Coverage and notification obligations are documented, but integration or testing is incomplete. Insurance requirements are reviewed separately from incident response planning. Insurance notification obligations and response resources have not been coordinated with incident procedures. Not Sure
Q15. Do the firm's owners or managing partners periodically review cybersecurity concerns and planned improvements? Owners or managing partners regularly review cyber risks, responsible owners, and improvement priorities. Leadership reviews cyber concerns periodically, but action tracking is incomplete. Cybersecurity is discussed mainly after incidents or when a provider raises an issue. Firm leadership does not have an established cybersecurity review process. Not Sure
Q15. Does firm leadership regularly review documented cybersecurity risks, assigned ownership, remediation progress, and accepted residual risk? Leadership reviews a documented risk register, accountable owners, remediation progress, and accepted residual risks. Leadership receives recurring risk reports, but ownership or accepted risks are not consistently documented. Cybersecurity updates are periodic without a maintained risk register or remediation tracking. Leadership has no established process for cybersecurity risk oversight. Not Sure
Cybersecurity Readiness — Questions 16–17 Q16. Does your firm have clear rules about which AI tools attorneys and staff may use for firm business? Approved AI services are documented, staff receive clear usage rules, an owner reviews new tools, and use of AI-enabled features is monitored. Approved AI tools and guidance are defined, but oversight of embedded AI functions or actual usage has gaps. Some attorneys and staff receive informal guidance, but approved tools and responsibility are not clearly defined. AI tools are used without established approval rules, usage guidance, or oversight. AI use is prohibited; comprehensive technical controls restrict relevant AI services and embedded features, with continuous monitoring for unauthorized use and confidential-data exposure. AI use is prohibited by documented policy; some AI services and embedded AI features are technically restricted, but enforcement and monitoring have coverage gaps. AI use is prohibited by policy, but there are no meaningful technical restrictions or monitoring of AI-enabled services. Not Sure
Q16. Does your firm maintain a formal process for approving, governing, and monitoring the use of AI tools across the organization? Approved AI services are inventoried and governed through centralized approval, accountable oversight, and monitoring of AI-enabled features across offices and platforms. Formal AI approval and oversight exist, but some offices, applications, or embedded AI functions are not consistently covered. Some teams follow AI approval guidance, but enterprise-wide governance and oversight are not established. AI services are used without an organization-wide approval or governance process. AI use is prohibited; comprehensive technical controls restrict relevant AI services and embedded features, with continuous monitoring for unauthorized use and confidential-data exposure. AI use is prohibited by documented policy; some AI services and embedded AI features are technically restricted, but enforcement and monitoring have coverage gaps. AI use is prohibited by policy, but there are no meaningful technical restrictions or monitoring of AI-enabled services. Not Sure
Q17. Does your firm have safeguards to prevent confidential client information from being entered into unapproved AI tools? Confidential client information is protected through enforceable AI data-sharing restrictions, staff guidance, and monitoring of relevant AI services and embedded features. AI confidentiality rules and some safeguards exist, but technical enforcement or monitoring is incomplete. Personnel are reminded to protect client information, but AI-specific restrictions are informal. No AI-specific safeguards or restrictions protect confidential client information. AI use is prohibited; comprehensive technical controls restrict relevant AI services and embedded features, with continuous monitoring for unauthorized use and confidential-data exposure. AI use is prohibited by documented policy; some AI services and embedded AI features are technically restricted, but enforcement and monitoring have coverage gaps. AI use is prohibited by policy, but there are no meaningful technical restrictions or monitoring of AI-enabled services. Not Sure
Q17. Does your firm enforce controls to protect confidential client information when attorneys and staff use approved or unapproved AI services? Approved AI services have enforced confidential-data protections, monitored transfer channels, and reviewed vendor data-handling terms across the organization. Confidentiality restrictions and some technical safeguards exist, but coverage or monitoring of AI-enabled features is incomplete. Selected teams have AI confidentiality guidance, but consistent enforcement is lacking. No established organization-wide safeguards govern confidential information shared with AI services. AI use is prohibited; comprehensive technical controls restrict relevant AI services and embedded features, with continuous monitoring for unauthorized use and confidential-data exposure. AI use is prohibited by documented policy; some AI services and embedded AI features are technically restricted, but enforcement and monitoring have coverage gaps. AI use is prohibited by policy, but there are no meaningful technical restrictions or monitoring of AI-enabled services. Not Sure