This article was originally published in the Connecticut Law Tribune.
Much has been written about e-mail scams preying upon attorneys; frankly, attorneys are quite capable of protecting themselves by virtue of their professional skills. We are, after all, analysts of prose, distinguishers of detail. Alas, few of us consider ourselves technologically capable, but this is a distraction and an excuse. Attorneys who routinely scrutinize documents somehow find themselves at the mercy of online crooks who often do a shamefully bad job of covering their tracks. I believe that attorneys can and should be immediately proactive and decisive with 99.9% of all scam e-mails they receive. Do your analysis and then, in most -- should I say “all?” -- cases, press “delete.”
But what is the analysis? Having reviewed many dozen specimens, some of which have been e-mail directly to me, others passed on to me by colleagues. The analysis is far simpler than one thinks, rarely requiring knowledge of technology. However, even the technology is easier to learn than the Rule against Perpetuities. The recommended analysis follows:
1) Review the content of the e-mail for suspect indicia;
2) Check the e-mail properties for clues as to origin; and,
3) Honestly look at your own motivation for wishing to believe in the purported validity of the e-mail received.
The third prong of this test the most difficult to apply, but crucial to self protection.
CONTENT
The review of content attempts to ascertain the validity of the e-mail content itself. It shouldn't take more than five minutes. The writer is purported to be an executive of a foreign company owed a substantial debt or, in a twist, and ex-spouse with outstanding custody payments. Generally, some kind of deal is offered that is profitable to the lawyer. Is this already sounding strange to you?
Does the e-mail spend paragraphs describing the company, its business and the legal issue involved? If so, your delete finger should begin to itch. In fact, this is the setup, designed to create a sense of trust in the reader. Warning bells should ring when a stranger tells another confidential information over an unsecure method of communication.
...continued on 4/25/11.
Much has been written about e-mail scams preying upon attorneys; frankly, attorneys are quite capable of protecting themselves by virtue of their professional skills. We are, after all, analysts of prose, distinguishers of detail. Alas, few of us consider ourselves technologically capable, but this is a distraction and an excuse. Attorneys who routinely scrutinize documents somehow find themselves at the mercy of online crooks who often do a shamefully bad job of covering their tracks. I believe that attorneys can and should be immediately proactive and decisive with 99.9% of all scam e-mails they receive. Do your analysis and then, in most -- should I say “all?” -- cases, press “delete.”
But what is the analysis? Having reviewed many dozen specimens, some of which have been e-mail directly to me, others passed on to me by colleagues. The analysis is far simpler than one thinks, rarely requiring knowledge of technology. However, even the technology is easier to learn than the Rule against Perpetuities. The recommended analysis follows:
1) Review the content of the e-mail for suspect indicia;
2) Check the e-mail properties for clues as to origin; and,
3) Honestly look at your own motivation for wishing to believe in the purported validity of the e-mail received.
The third prong of this test the most difficult to apply, but crucial to self protection.
CONTENT
The review of content attempts to ascertain the validity of the e-mail content itself. It shouldn't take more than five minutes. The writer is purported to be an executive of a foreign company owed a substantial debt or, in a twist, and ex-spouse with outstanding custody payments. Generally, some kind of deal is offered that is profitable to the lawyer. Is this already sounding strange to you?
Does the e-mail spend paragraphs describing the company, its business and the legal issue involved? If so, your delete finger should begin to itch. In fact, this is the setup, designed to create a sense of trust in the reader. Warning bells should ring when a stranger tells another confidential information over an unsecure method of communication.
...continued on 4/25/11.
RSS Feed
