Series cancelled.
Watson, Farley & Williams has yanked a webinar off YouTube after it was pointed out that a partner had accidentally revealed the identity of some of her clients and aspects of her family life.
The partner, whom RollOnFriday is not naming, was required to take the helm an hour into a presentation on risks "relating to the construction of the power plant in the LNG value chain". Understandably transfixed by the material, she failed to maximise the slides on which she was commentating, exposing a ring of blessed distraction from the power plant tedium.
Only the titles of her desktop folders were visible, granting viewers a tantalising glimpse into the professional and personal life of a WFW partner. It wouldn't be fair to reveal what they were, but disconcertingly they were all wholesome, apart from the identity of a couple of the clients.
Luckily, power plants in the LNG value chain appear to hold limited interest for people, so the video had only accrued 52 views before it was pulled down.
In a statement, WFW said, "We take matters of confidentiality seriously; the unfortunate incident in question has been rectified".
WFW should really be paying ROF a retainer for IT crisis assistance. Last year the firm rushed to remove a video from YouTube which exposed confidential client and partner information after RollOnFiday alerted it.
Comments
425
251
Come on guys, this is an innocent mistake. There but for the grace of God, and all that...
Not newsworthy.
246
153
Good ol’ WFW, never far away from an IT or data fuck-up.
199
242
Slow news day ROF?
266
192
Yes, an innocent mistake and could happen to anyone but WFW BD/Marketing should have picked that up before it was publicly posted by the firm. Did BD/marking or comms watch it before uploading?
186
239
Pathetic story
268
168
Innocent mistake or not - this was a data protection breach. Have the relevant clients been informed and were the file names of the documents identifiable?
243
151
Hi WFW defenders! Larfing at you making out like this is nothing...Rof was gentle, didn't even name her.
244
162
An innocent mistake the first time yes, but they've done it twice now... that means its now not just an ooopsy, it means they didn't learn from it, they didn't bother to improve their systems to ensure this didn't happen again... so actually, its not really there but for the grace of god go I because they're professionals, and if they don't learn from their mistakes you should think that's a problem (and if you don't I hope you're never representing me because lord knows you can't be very good at your job).
255
159
Cue the WFW defence squadron trying to pretend this firm is anything but a shambles. LOL
220
179
Poor form. Clients expect confidentiality and are entitled to it. This was easy to guard against.
252
138
Anon 1116 - you are right. Why are client related documents being stored on the desktop and not in matter files which are secure? One hopes that the SRA are paying attention to this.
237
181
Totally not the presenting lawyer’s fault; these things happen all the time. Definitely the firm’s fault. The presentation would have been to registered audience and would have been live so basically no harm no foul as most participants would follow Chatham House rules and not disclose( but for the firm’s BD/marketing people to put it on the firm’s website and YouTube is an absolute disgrace. Why didn’t they watch it FFS? Were they sitting at home watching daytime TV waiting for the ppp mid-selling adverts to come up to get the number to call to check if their H and M store card provider mis-sold a credit card. Honestly, this firm needs to wake up and sort out it’s governance and control (but I guess that’s not a priority for the MP in Asia).
166
227
This is a complete non-story blown out of proportions. I appreciate that the view from the mighty high horses may be magnificent, but come on. Nothing to see here apart from virtue signalling and trolling by commenters.
207
176
So many people trying to glaze over this is concerning from a GDPR perspective. I would expect to see shortcuts to software systems used by lawyers but not Word and Excel and photos saved to desktops.
205
170
Yeah it was an accident.
Yeah she didn't do it on purpose.
Yeah it was a breach of client confidentiality.
Yeah it's a story worth publishing.
212
172
Sorry anon 1234 - what about the presenter? Why were apparently identifiable client related documents stored on the desktop and not safely and securely filed.
Blaming support staff is always the easy and cheap way out.
196
185
I blame the support staff.
207
171
15:49
cos that’s what those BD/Marketing/comms people are paid for; to check content is suitable for public dissemination.
they either didn’t watch it or didn’t pay attention to it.
229
165
It's getting so that people who work at WFW can instantly spot the other people who work at WFW can instantly spot who is making the defensive comments, just saying...
176
185
Partner didn’t maximise the window...
203
210
SRA aren’t concerned how data is saved only that it doesn’t become publicly available.
grow up
188
177
@News flash and news flash 2 - all ok?!
209
154
wfw's offices in hk is shit
190
170
The presenter shouldn’t really be blamed for a tech mishap that happens in the course of a live presentation But for the firm to “miss” the slip up and then post the recording on YouTube for public viewing is just negligent. As some other poster has said, the comms or events or BD team either didn’t watch it or didn’t pay attention; either way it’s their fault it was missed. Perhaps the head of bd or the head of whatever team was responsible for posting should be shown the door?
this type of thing has happened at wfw before so it’s arguably linked to lack of management, governance, or just plan old attention to detail. Whatever the cause it is concerning that if the firm can’t get this type of thing right then what is the risk that the firm gets something much more material wrong.
164
202
@Anon10 to imply someone should LOSE THEIR JOB over this laughable. It was clearly a mistake and rectified. I hope someone shows you compassion if you ever screw up...
193
171
People at wfw have lost their jobs over a lot less. In fact, people at wfw have lost their jobs just by doing their jobs properly but not generating enough for the great and the good to keep their noses in the trough.
212
161
The good news in all of this is that no one has yet commented on the content of the presentation ... which is encouraging!
229
164
@Anonymous 10 October 20 06:35
its even shittier now.
180
157
Technical mishaps happen. Hence surely the presenter (a law firm partner) who should be aware of risk management, compliance and have basic presentation skills viewed the recording after the event and before it was posted into the public domain to make sure it was in a form which would be presentable to clients / potential clients of the firm?
217
154
@1228
multiple failings in my view: presenting partner, BD, Comms, the other presenters etc. Did none of them think to check it before sanctioning publication.
190
163
@Anon 11 - you seem rattled. You should try yoga.
Are you showing compassion to those people who have lost their jobs at Watson Farley through no fault of their own or who are still worried about their jobs? Doubt it.
184
146
A warning and reminder to all of us just how easy it is to drop a bollock when farting about with techy shite.
187
166
What sort of ancient technology system did they use? Surely they have the money to invest in proper technology to avoid this happening? Not a good sign if they can’t run a simple webinar properly.
169
151
Just googling Watson Farley Williamson brb
184
148
Yes, it was a mistake by the presenters but it should have been picked up by events or comms or BD before being published. But Spare a thought for those presenting because at least two of them had been served notice of termination by the firm before this presentation went out. And they’re part of the first wave. What is the real story at wfw?!? Ask that question ROF!