This article addresses the ethical and risk management implications of two insidious consequences of our dependence on technology. The first concerns lawyers’ duties when they first become (or should become) aware that hackers are trying to misdirect a settlement payment. The second arises from the ability of email users to attach “beacons” to emails that allow senders to learn whether and when an email has been opened by the recipient without informing the recipient that the beacon is in place.
Duties to Opposing Counsel
It should come as no surprise that the technology lawyers use provides hackers with new and sophisticated ways to misdirect settlement payments. When this occurs, the question posed is who should bear the risk of loss between two seemingly innocent parties. In Bile v RREMC, LLC, 2016 WL 4487864 (E.D. Va, Aug. 24, 2016), a federal district court recently concluded that in addition to the duty to protect the interests of the lawyer’s own client an attorney owed a duty to notify opposing counsel when the lawyer became aware that a hacker was targeting a settlement involved in one of the lawyer’s cases.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
