[Part 1 was posted on 4/20/11, below]
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.
Is the legal issue proposed the collection of a debt? Virtually all scam e-mails I have read propose collection matters. In one common scam, the purported debtor -- in existence only for the scam and quite likely the “client” himself -- pays up with a forged bank. After attorney wires client the proceeds, the bank check comes back, unpaid, to haunt the attorney, who is now on the hook for the sum he wired plus bank fees for bounced check. Client and Debtor vanish into the night. Instead of agreeing to take a percentage, try proposing to this client an hourly basis with a hefty upfront retainer wired in cash. Better yet, don’t. You won't hear back.
Does the writer compliment you? Here is an actual example: “After a careful research, we have been able to establish that delinquents or past due accounts are settled when reputable and aggressive firm or professional(s) represents an organization in collection of debts or possible litigation that may arise thereof.” …which is why we’ve chosen you! Your vanity meter should read off the scale. A compliment from a stranger may be genuine, but may also lay the groundwork for very subtle scheming. Redouble your suspicions!
Is there extensive use of four and five syllable words, such as actualization, implementation, delinquency, and sentences that run on for 50 words or more? This is an attempt to appeal to those who inhabit the jungle of legal jargon. Business executives hardly write at all and when they do, they do so in bullet points of no more than 10 words of two syllables each. Your delete finger should now be hovering over the delete button.
If the writer offers a substantial retainer, one can virtually disregard the rest of the e-mail immediately. Generally, clients do not wish to pay all. The delete finger should feel heavy now…
Are you addressed by name? If you are addressed only by "Counsel," or not at all, the e-mail is intended for a mass audience. Hit the delete button.
Does the e-mail purport to come from China? China is hot and ripe for scamploitation. Chinese rarely, if ever, reach out to people personally unknown, untouched and unseen for representation. Delete.
Is the claim made that the writer came across the attorney's name in a directory in which the attorney isn't listed or doesn’t exist? Delete.
Does the writer claim to have contacted the attorney once before, when there hasn't been prior contact? Delete.
In a lengthy e-mail, are there significant errors of grammar and/or spelling? Delete.
[Continued on May 18, 2011 above.]
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.
Is the legal issue proposed the collection of a debt? Virtually all scam e-mails I have read propose collection matters. In one common scam, the purported debtor -- in existence only for the scam and quite likely the “client” himself -- pays up with a forged bank. After attorney wires client the proceeds, the bank check comes back, unpaid, to haunt the attorney, who is now on the hook for the sum he wired plus bank fees for bounced check. Client and Debtor vanish into the night. Instead of agreeing to take a percentage, try proposing to this client an hourly basis with a hefty upfront retainer wired in cash. Better yet, don’t. You won't hear back.
Does the writer compliment you? Here is an actual example: “After a careful research, we have been able to establish that delinquents or past due accounts are settled when reputable and aggressive firm or professional(s) represents an organization in collection of debts or possible litigation that may arise thereof.” …which is why we’ve chosen you! Your vanity meter should read off the scale. A compliment from a stranger may be genuine, but may also lay the groundwork for very subtle scheming. Redouble your suspicions!
Is there extensive use of four and five syllable words, such as actualization, implementation, delinquency, and sentences that run on for 50 words or more? This is an attempt to appeal to those who inhabit the jungle of legal jargon. Business executives hardly write at all and when they do, they do so in bullet points of no more than 10 words of two syllables each. Your delete finger should now be hovering over the delete button.
If the writer offers a substantial retainer, one can virtually disregard the rest of the e-mail immediately. Generally, clients do not wish to pay all. The delete finger should feel heavy now…
Are you addressed by name? If you are addressed only by "Counsel," or not at all, the e-mail is intended for a mass audience. Hit the delete button.
Does the e-mail purport to come from China? China is hot and ripe for scamploitation. Chinese rarely, if ever, reach out to people personally unknown, untouched and unseen for representation. Delete.
Is the claim made that the writer came across the attorney's name in a directory in which the attorney isn't listed or doesn’t exist? Delete.
Does the writer claim to have contacted the attorney once before, when there hasn't been prior contact? Delete.
In a lengthy e-mail, are there significant errors of grammar and/or spelling? Delete.
[Continued on May 18, 2011 above.]
RSS Feed
