A screenshot from the Morris James Solicitors website, which is unaffiliated with Delaware-based U.S. firm Morris James.Cyber Scammers Target Morris James, Faking UK Affiliation
Delaware-based Morris James warned this week that a website borrowing real details about the firm was thoroughly phony.
August 02, 2019 at 02:14 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
Delaware-based midsize law firm Morris James has found that its name is being used by a website claiming to belong to a group of solicitors in the United Kingdom affiliated with the Delaware firm.
The problem is, there is no such group.
Morris James posted a notification on its own website and social media Thursday warning that the website www.morrisjamessolicitors.com “is NOT associated with Morris James LLP.”
In its announcement, the law firm said it has reported the website to the FBI, the Action Fraud team of the U.K. police and the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the U.K. Morris James is also “taking steps with the website host to persuade them to take down the website,” the firm said.
Morris James declined to comment further on the incident.
The solicitors site uses logos and coloring similar to Morris James’ branding, and it makes a reference to the real firm’s main office in Delaware.
However, Morris James noted, the phone numbers listed on the site will not connect a caller with any of the firm’s U.S. offices, and no one answering those lines will be a representative to the firm.
The impostor website says Morris James Solicitors has an office at 1 Waterhouse Square, 138 Holborn in London, which appears to be the site of a WeWork shared office space. A call to the Delaware phone number listed on the impostor site leads to the message “the phone number you have dialed is unreachable.”
According to GoDaddy.com’s WHOIS database, the impostor site’s domain is registered to Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd, which appears to be a Malaysian web hosting entity.
Morris James’ situation is reminiscent of other instances of law firm or lawyer identity theft in recent years.
In 2017, the photos of lawyers from Brydon Swearengen & England in Missouri were used to create a website for a fake firm called Wesley & McCain. The phony firm’s website also listed the address of actual Pittsburgh law firm Robb Leonard Mulvihill as its own street address.
A Houston lawyer for Jackson Walker found in 2017 that his headshot appeared on the website of a fictitious firm, Walsh & Padilla.
Preventing such theft is virtually impossible, privacy experts have said, given that the entire purpose of a website is to disseminate useful information about the firm. The problem arises when that information is used improperly.
But unlike other businesses that engage in e-commerce, law firms usually do not collect payment information on their websites. So establishing the motives of such a hack can be difficult.
In the Wesley & McCain instance, the fake firm was found out because it sent a letter to Amazon.com alleging that it was selling a patent-infringing product.
|Read More
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
Davis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Companies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Ex-DLA Piper, Ballard Spahr Atty Accused of Aiding Video Game Company Founder's Misappropriation Scheme
5 minute read
Chancery Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1From 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Rollercoaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Why Jurors in California Failed to Reach Verdict Over Zantac, Bankruptcy Judge Tables Sanctions Against Beasley Allen Attorney
- 3Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
- 4Elections Have Consequences: Some Thoughts on Labor and Employment Law Topics in 2025 and Beyond
- 5Law Firm Associates, Staffers Continue to Put a Premium On Workplace Flexibility, Study Finds
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
