4 Phishing Tactics That Dupe the Legal Profession
Hackers are studying lawyers' practice areas, social media presence and their firm's hierarchies to craft subtle but destructive phishing schemes, cybersecurity experts say.
August 21, 2019 at 03:41 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Phishing attacks are prevalent in all industries, and the legal profession is no different.
However, unlike other industries, lawyers possess a plethora of information regarding their clients that makes attorneys an attractive target for hackers. Likewise, hackers are studying their lawyer targets to understand how to craft an attachment file or link that is just too compelling or too run-of-the-mill for a lawyer to ignore.
The list below highlights some of the legal industry-specific phishing tactics hackers are leveraging to gain access into lawyers' sensitive data files.
|Accessing the cloud
Last week, managed detection and response company eSentire Inc., in collaboration with the International Legal Technology Association, released the "Threat Intelligence Spotlight: Legal Industry" report that tackled "phishing lures" specific to the legal industry.
The report found phishing schemes regarding Adobe's cloud service are unique to the legal industry because of lawyer's heavy reliance on PDFs.
ESentire data visualization leader Keegan Keplinger explained hackers leverage attorneys' Adobe account by sending an email notifying lawyers of an update that requires their Adobe log-in credentials. Unbeknownst to the lawyers, they've submitted their password and username into a fraudulent site, and now a hacker has access to their data stored on the Adobe cloud service.
|Faking credit card inquiries
ESentire's report also highlighted American Express phishing scams are also found more commonly in the legal profession.
Moreover, lawyers and law firms are more susceptible to this phishing scheme because lawyers are usually thought of as high-income earners or work for a firm that has a credit card, said eSentire vice president and industry security strategist Mark Sangster.
Generally, someone will send a fake AMEX payment confirmation request to a lawyer or law firm and obtain access to their credit card accounts, Sangster explained.
|Exploiting law firms' hierarchy
Not all phishing attacks are tech exhaustive. Instead, someone can impersonate a high-ranking partner and email an administrative-level staffer and make a demand. Their email isn't vetted for authenticity because the staffer hopes to appease a high-ranking employee, said Joshua Crumbaugh, CEO of cybersecurity company PeopleSec.
"Law firms are some of the worst at hierarchy, and some of my experiences has been with information technology and any support staff that has a subordinate role and they tend to be very afraid to ask questions of partners in the firm," Crumbaugh said. "This is unique to law firms. In general they've got to empower their lower-level and support staff to be confident with asking those questions and saying, 'No, that's not part of the policy.' "
|Spear phishing
To be sure, law firm websites' bios and social media are good tools for obtaining clients and networking, but they also provide hackers with information to make a convincing phishing email tailored to a lawyer's interests, said cybersecurity experts.
That type of spear phishing could come as an email about news affecting his practice group or other interests.
The tailored communications are an attempt to "try to put something in that email that would get them to click the link or attachment," said Adam Levin, chairman of CyberScout, an identity and data protection company. While the content may appear innocent, the lawyer has clicked a link or downloaded a file that contains malware that infects the firm's systems.
Additionally, someone can send a realistic demand or request tailored to a current client's legal matter. Stoked by the rush to help their client, lawyers may unsuspectingly transfer cash or sensitive data to a hacker, Crumbaugh added.
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 AllJudge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement - With Conditions
5 minute readOn Governor's Desk: NY 'Death Gamble' Bill That Seeks to Correct Pension Anomaly for Judges
'Serious Misconduct' From Monsanto Lawyer Prompts Mistrial in Chicago Roundup Case
3 minute readCleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
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