Hacked 9/11 Docs Weren't Stolen From Husch Blackwell, Firm Says
After a hacker group boasted it had obtained thousands of legal and insurance documents connected to the 9/11 attacks, including filings from the firm, Husch Blackwell underlined that its own systems had not been compromised.
January 02, 2019 at 06:20 PM
4 minute read
Husch Blackwell is emphasizing that it was not directly subject to a data breach after a hacker claimed on New Years Eve that it was in possession of legal documents created by its predecessor firm pertaining to the 9/11 attacks.
As reported by the Financial Times, a hacker or group of hackers calling itself The Dark Overlord announced that it had hacked insurers Hiscox and Lloyds of London, along with World Trade Center owner Silverstein Properties. In doing so, The Dark Overlord said it had obtained a trove of documents from Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, which is now Husch Blackwell.
The hackers made images from 16 documents available online. These involve filings from the “In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001” litigation in the Southern District of New York from Blackwell Sanders. The firm was retained by Lloyds to recover losses suffered in the 9/11 attacks and a document also reveals a 2002 invoice for Hiscox. The documents also include correspondence from other law firms involved in the matter and additional fragments connected to the litigation.
The Dark Overlord did not claim it had hacked Husch Blackwell itself, and the firm issued a statement denying that it had been hacked.
“Several documents bearing the letterhead of a predecessor law firm to Husch Blackwell were made public earlier this week by a cyber terrorist group,” the firm said in a statement. “After a thorough review Husch Blackwell can confirm that no documents were obtained from Husch Blackwell and that there was no unauthorized access to Husch Blackwell systems, client files, documents or data.”
Husch Blackwell acknowledged that the documents made public related to a representation that stemmed from the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, but it noted that the attorneys in charge of the matter left Blackwell Sanders in early 2002 and took the representation with them, putting an end to the firm's connection to the litigation.
“Information available to us indicates that any breach relating to the documents recently made public occurred at another firm,” the firm added.
In April 2018, Hiscox acknowledged that a “specialist law firm” in the U.S. that provided advice to Hiscox had been hacked and information connected to as many as 1,500 of Hiscox's US-based commercial insurance policyholders had been accessed.
After the Dark Overlord announced the hack Monday, the insurer issued a statement noting that posts appearing online were connected to the earlier announcement. The firm did not name the law firm that it claimed was responsible for the breach and did not answer a further inquiry.
“The law firm's systems are not connected to Hiscox's IT infrastructure and Hiscox's own systems were unaffected by this incident,” a company spokesman said. “One of the cases the law firm handled for Hiscox and other insurers related to subrogation litigation arising from the events of 9/11, and we believe that information relating to this was stolen during that breach.”
The hacker claimed that the initial 16 documents were part of 18,000 that it had in its possession, and that it intended to sell them for Bitcoin to anyone interested, including terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda as well as U.S. geopolitical rivals China and Russia.
It also had a message for parties involved in the litigation who would likely prefer to see their documents remain private:
“If you're one of the dozens of solicitor firms who was involved in the litigation, a politician who was involved in the case, a law enforcement agency who was involved in the investigations, a property management firm, an investment bank, a client of a client, a reference of a reference, a global insurer, or whoever else, you're welcome to contact our e-mail below and make a request to formally have your documents and materials withdrawn from any eventual public release of the materials. However, you'll be paying us,” The Dark Overlord said, in an announcement posted on Pastebin.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
As Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250