Lead AI Forward Engineer

Emma King promoted to Manager, Executive and Event Communications at Thomson Reuters. Emma King has taken on a new role at Thomson Reuters as Manager, Executive and Event Communications, expanding her responsibilities within the company's communications function. She previously worked as Manager, Segment Communications at Thomson Reuters, where her work included supporting internal communications for the company's Tax, Audit & Accounting segment. Her responsibilities have included communications around conferences, sales meetings, customer stories, and internal initiatives. Her move into executive and event communications comes as companies continue to place greater emphasis on how leadership messaging, employee communications, and industry events connect with broader business priorities. Executive communications has become an increasingly important part of corporate communications as senior leaders communicate with employees, customers, partners, and other stakeholders across multiple channels. Events also provide organizations with opportunities to bring together these audiences while reinforcing key business messages. For Thomson Reuters, the role places King closer to communications involving senior leadership and events, adding another dimension to her existing experience within the company's communications organization. King has a background in journalism and communications, and has previously worked across public affairs and communications roles. She also has experience creating social media content, writing stories, and supporting communications in fast-changing environments. The appointment reflects the broader evolution of corporate communications, where teams are increasingly expected to coordinate executive messaging, internal engagement, events, digital content, and stakeholder communications as part of a connected communications strategy.

Thomson Reuters' court software breach exposed sealed records for months. A third party data breach at Thomson Reuters has exposed sealed and confidential court records. The exposure hit more than two dozen courts across North America. It included Social Security numbers, medical details and case files that were never meant to go public. Thomson Reuters disclosed the incident on 2 September 2026. That was roughly four months after the unauthorised access began. Table of Contents The third party data breach at a glance. The breach hit C-Track, a court case management platform. West Publishing Corporation, a Thomson Reuters subsidiary, sells it to state and provincial court systems. Thomson Reuters says someone accessed files sitting in its own cloud environment. The courts' own networks and servers were not touched, according to the company. Unauthorised access ran from 1 March to 29 June 2026. Thomson Reuters found the intrusion on 30 June. It then spent roughly three weeks working out what had been taken. Courts were told between 23 and 27 July. Public disclosure did not follow until early September. That gap will draw scrutiny of its own. At least 24 court bodies have confirmed they were affected. They span eleven US states: Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wyoming. The US Virgin Islands and three courts in Ontario, Canada, are also affected. This is based on reporting from TechNadu and notices the affected courts published themselves. Names, numbers and sealed files. The exposed data reportedly includes names, Social Security numbers and driver's licence numbers. It also covers dates of birth, medical and health insurance information, case numbers, addresses and phone numbers. Some files were confidential, redacted or sealed under court order. That means a judge had already decided the public should not see them. Thomson Reuters has not published a total figure for how many people are affected. Ontario's court system put it plainly in its own notice. Anyone who has appeared in, or even been mentioned in, a court filing across the affected jurisdictions could have had personal information exposed. Nobody quite agrees on what was taken. One detail stands out once you compare the individual court notices, rather than Thomson Reuters' own summary. Montana's judiciary described the accessed material as backup data. These were copies kept for troubleshooting, not the live system courts use every day. Ohio described its own exposure differently. It referred to the "production platform" itself. That inconsistency matters. If a vendor and its customers cannot agree whether live data or a stale backup was exposed, nobody had a clear map of where sensitive information actually lived. So a third party data breach like this one is harder to contain than a single, well-mapped system would be. For a system holding sealed criminal and family court records, that gap is not small. Why a third party data breach is everyone's problem. Every organisation that hands sensitive data to a third-party platform is trusting that vendor's internal environment as much as its own. Thomson Reuters says C-Track kept running throughout, with no operational disruption. It also says it has seen no evidence yet of the stolen data being misused. That is a reasonable thing to say two months after discovery. It is not a guarantee. This site has urged the same doubt toward vendor severity ratings on newly disclosed bugs. So a vendor's own account of its own breach deserves that same doubt. UK businesses often assume vendor risk stops once due diligence is done at contract signing. This case argues otherwise. A vendor's backups, staging tools and internal cloud storage are all part of the attack surface. That is true even when the live system a client logs into looks perfectly secure. Under UK GDPR, a business stays on the hook for its supplier's security failures. Signing a contract is not where that duty ends. Thomson Reuters is offering 12 months of free credit monitoring through Experian IdentityWorks. Enrolment is open to affected individuals until 31 December 2026, alongside a dedicated support line. That is a standard response. It does not undo four months of unmonitored access to files that courts had specifically sealed from view. It also joins a run of large, recognisable names whose breaches this year, including the M&S data breach, exposed customer data at scale, and shows that brand size is no proxy for security. What businesses should do next. Firms that rely on third-party platforms for case files, HR records or customer data should ask suppliers a direct question. Where do backups and troubleshooting copies of its data actually sit, and who can reach them? A penetration test scoped only to the production login page will miss exactly this kind of internal storage. It is also worth checking your incident response contracts now, before you need them. Ask suppliers what their breach notification timeline actually commits them to. Then check it against your own rules. UK firms must generally tell the ICO within 72 hours of finding a notifiable breach. A four-month gap before telling anyone sits very badly next to that. Any business that has not tested how a supplier would handle a third party data breach is just taking its word for it. Honest updates, straight to your inbox. Unsubscribe any time. Rebecca is a dedicated cybersecurity writer who specialises in transforming complex technical concepts into clear, accessible content. With a strong background in IT and a passion for digital security, she produces insightful articles, guides, and thought-pieces that bridge the gap between technical experts and wider audiences. You may also like. September 7, 2026

'Legal Business has gone from zero to hero' - in-house legal teams ramp up AI investment as budgets surge. A new survey of more than 250 senior in-house lawyers has revealed how corporate legal teams are ramping up their investment in cutting-edge AI technology. This year's Legal Tech Pulse survey, conducted by Legal Business in association with Thomson Reuters, found that almost two-thirds (62%) of in-house legal functions now have an approved budget for legal tech investments over the next 12 months, significantly up from just under half (48%) last year. Further underlining that momentum, 50% of respondents to the survey said that their budget for legal tech investments had increased this year, with only 5% saying their budget had been reduced. With the rapid rise of AI-powered legal tech high on the agenda for the legal profession, around a quarter of respondents to the survey said that they expected to invest more than 50% of their total budget in AI solutions over the next year. The survey canvassed senior in-house lawyers from around the world, with a focus on the UK and Continental Europe. General counsel and heads of legal interviewed for the research talked of the pace of change in recent months and the transformational effect that new tech has had on their operations... Nina Cronstedt, chief legal officer at Stockholm-listed security company Verisure, said her team had witnessed huge change over the past six months, and that new technology had 'truly changed the way we work.' 'There has been a tremendous acceleration in the last six months in terms of what the enterprise AI tools are able to deliver, the breadth of pick-up across the function, and the number of use cases now fully deployed.' EY Luxembourg GC Antonio Benitez-Donoso echoed the sentiment. 'Quoting Hercules - Legal Business has gone from zero to hero,' he said. 'We have gone from small-scale, personal use to automating processes and accelerating contract review.' The responses to the survey also provided hard evidence of how GCs are finding it significantly easier to get support from the wider business for investment in legal tech, with 31% now describing it as 'quite' or 'very' easy to get buy-in - up from under 20% last year. At the same time, resistance is falling, with the proportion of respondents saying securing buy-in is 'not very easy' or 'almost impossible' falling to 21% this year, way down from last year's equivalent figure of 43%. Alex Graydon, associate general counsel at Thomson Reuters, says she is increasingly hearing from peers about how it is becoming easier to secure budget for AI investment. 'The reason for that is because there is an expectation and an understanding that you can't do without AI anymore,' she says. 'It's no longer a "nice to have" - it's an essential business tool.' The Legal Tech Pulse 2026 report, produced by Legal Business in association with Thomson Reuters, offers a comprehensive look at how in-house legal teams are embracing technological change, drawing on a survey of over 250 GC and senior lawyers. The full report will be released later this month - ahead of the release, the findings will be discussed in a dedicated webinar on 24 September. Click here for more information and to register for the webinar.