Did You Know It's Cyberattack Awareness Month?
The old adage about us being a profession and not a business causes some of us to forget that the business aspect of lawyering can be as important, if not more, than the professional stuff.
October 18, 2018 at 04:38 PM
4 minute read
Apparently October is Cyberattack Awareness Month. Who knew?
All I know is that every day is cyberattack day, because every day we are probed/attacked/offered malware/sent viruses and worms/socially engineered and in many, many ways explored for vulnerabilities which can lead to data breach, ransom demands and compromised confidentiality.
There's a neat flyer that explains how to be aware of some of the standard attacks available below.
Managing partners should blow this up and paste it on the walls of every office, every cubicle and next to every computer. Here are a few hints from my own experience repping lawyers who have taken the bait and had bad things happen.
No one from Singapore, the Netherlands, Michigan or anywhere else wants you to pursue a debt, write a purchase and sale agreement, or otherwise represent anyone in “your jurisdiction.” It just never happens. You're not that famous, important, well thought of or possessed of a high enough profile that people from all over the country or the world are trying to get you to rep them.
No one is going to give you a piece of business where the defendant/counterparty immediately confesses the debt or sends the deposit and mails you a check for the full sum by return mail.
No client is ever going to let you take 20 percent of a recovery on a file you just opened simply for the huge work of depositing the check into your IOLTA account and wiring them the rest. It never happens.
None of your friends or colleagues are going to email you unexpected letters as attachments and ask you to get back to them. If they do (one actually did that to me the other day), you should open it only after calling and confirming that they were the sender. P.S., don't email them back to confirm that it's them; you will get a spoofing email saying “of course it's me.” It's not.
None of your friends just saw something cool in the paper and thought you'd be interested in the link.
If you use an outside vendor for paralegal work, you'd better make sure they are as paranoid about security as you are. I've seen more than one closing deposit or mortgage funding diverted because the outside para was hacked and spurious wiring instructions were sent to the sender seconds before they hit send.
Don't think you can lay missing funds off on the bank that accepted your deposit of a bogus check. If you deposit it, it's your responsibility. Ask your pals who do banking work. The banks never pay.
Make sure you have robust and comprehensive cyber risk insurance. That is unless you want to assume the risk of loss yourself. It may be costly, but we lawyers are targeted because we handle large sums of money and are famously porous when it comes to security.
If you are hacked, consider your obligations under both the Rules of Professional Conduct and any other regulatory regime that may apply. The ABA just issued an ethics opinion on that.
Read the opinion below. It's enough to make you get cyber risk coverage.
I just saw where Missouri issued an ethics opinion saying that a scammer who establishes an attorney-client relationship with you is entitled to Rule 1.6 confidentiality anyway. I think that's naïve. (Actually, I think it's what comes out of the rear end of a horse, but I'm not allowed to say that here.)
I like the approach Colorado has taken that the rules don't apply to “clients” who only try to establish a relationship to steal from you. They're not clients. They're crooks. Can you imagine on of these “Nigerian Princes” actually filing a grievance because you sent the counterfeit check to the Secret Service instead of depositing it and wiping out your IOLTA account and probably your liquid net worth? Really?
The old adage about us being a profession and not a business causes some of us to forget that the business aspect of lawyering can be as important, if not more, than the professional stuff. It's a war, and we're the weak country being invaded through every wire, wireless connection, computer, phone or other device we're using. Happy October!
Former Connecticut Chief Disciplinary Counsel Mark Dubois is with Geraghty & Bonnano in New London.
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 AllADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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