*/
Confidential client information stored in the ‘cloud’ could be accessed by US authorities, the Bar Council has warned.
The IT Panel issued advice in February to help ensure practitioners do not inadvertently infringe the Data Protection Act.
It explains that a combination of the US Patriot Act and other US laws confer powers on the American security services to access personal information stored on facilities provided by US persons or companies, without the knowledge or consent of their customers.
This occurs when the information is stored on computers owned directly or indirectly by US corporations, for example: where case files, emails and accounts are stored on cloud services; where files and administrative software is hosted externally as part of chambers’ back-up or disaster recovery plan; and where chambers use other miscellaneous IT services. Such information may be inadvertently disclosed to the US authorities.
Barristers were warned to check where legally privileged and confidential information is stored, whether any company which stores professional information has US parentage, and if they could be subject to the provisions of the US Patriot Act, and to consider encrypting access to data placed on external servers.
Jacqueline Reid, Chair of the Bar Council IT Panel, said US laws confer considerable surveillance powers on US authorities.
‘Barristers routinely retain legally privileged information relating to their clients, and they should be aware that these surveillance powers can place the confidentiality and security of this highly confidential information at risk.’
Confidential client information stored in the ‘cloud’ could be accessed by US authorities, the Bar Council has warned.
The IT Panel issued advice in February to help ensure practitioners do not inadvertently infringe the Data Protection Act.
It explains that a combination of the US Patriot Act and other US laws confer powers on the American security services to access personal information stored on facilities provided by US persons or companies, without the knowledge or consent of their customers.
This occurs when the information is stored on computers owned directly or indirectly by US corporations, for example: where case files, emails and accounts are stored on cloud services; where files and administrative software is hosted externally as part of chambers’ back-up or disaster recovery plan; and where chambers use other miscellaneous IT services. Such information may be inadvertently disclosed to the US authorities.
Barristers were warned to check where legally privileged and confidential information is stored, whether any company which stores professional information has US parentage, and if they could be subject to the provisions of the US Patriot Act, and to consider encrypting access to data placed on external servers.
Jacqueline Reid, Chair of the Bar Council IT Panel, said US laws confer considerable surveillance powers on US authorities.
‘Barristers routinely retain legally privileged information relating to their clients, and they should be aware that these surveillance powers can place the confidentiality and security of this highly confidential information at risk.’
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC present their best buys for this holiday season
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
