Phishing Has Changed: What Law Firms Need to Watch For

October is Cybersecurity Awareness Month, making it a good time for law firms to revisit one of the most common cybersecurity threats their employees face: phishing.

For years, people were told to identify phishing emails by looking for obvious warning signs such as poor grammar, misspelled words, strange formatting, or awkward language. While those clues can still appear, relying on them alone is no longer enough.

Modern phishing messages can be polished, professional, and highly convincing. They may reference a real attorney, client, transaction, vendor, or internal business process. With AI making it easier to generate natural-sounding messages quickly, even a well-written email may deserve a second look.

The question employees should ask is no longer simply:

“Does this email look fake?”

A better question is:

“Is this person asking me to do something unusual?”

The Warning Signs Have Changed

Consider this scenario.

An employee receives an email that appears to come from a partner at the firm:

“I’m tied up. I need this wire sent immediately. Don’t call — I can’t answer.”

The email address may look right. The writing may sound professional. The request may even reference a legitimate matter.

The danger becomes clearer when you focus on the behavior of the request, rather than the appearance of the email.

Here are several elements law firm employees should learn to recognize.

1. Urgency

Phishing attempts often create pressure to act immediately.

A message may say a payment must be sent right away, a document needs to be opened before a deadline, or an account will be locked unless the recipient responds.

Urgency is effective because it reduces the amount of time people spend thinking about the request.

When a message pushes an employee to move unusually fast, that should be a signal to stop and verify.

2. Pressure to Bypass Normal Procedures

A particularly important warning sign is a request to ignore the firm’s established process.

Examples might include:

  • Sending a wire without the usual approval.
  • Changing banking information without confirming it.
  • Providing confidential information through an unfamiliar method.
  • Skipping a required phone verification.
  • Being told not to contact the person making the request.

Legitimate requests should still be able to withstand normal verification procedures.

3. Unexpected Financial Changes

Law firms frequently handle money, settlement funds, invoices, retainers, and client transactions, which makes financial requests especially important to verify.

Employees should be cautious when a client suddenly provides new wire instructions, a vendor changes its banking information, or someone requests that money be sent to a different account than usual.

Even when the email looks legitimate, a financial change should be confirmed through a trusted channel.

4. Requests for Credentials or Confidential Information

Phishing is not limited to stealing money.

Attackers may also try to obtain usernames, passwords, documents, client information, access codes, or other sensitive data.

A request for credentials or confidential information that seems unusual—or that arrives through an unexpected channel—should trigger verification before anything is shared.

5. Instructions Not to Verify

One of the strongest warning signs may be an attempt to discourage verification.

Messages such as:

“Don’t call me.”

“I’m unavailable.”

“Just take care of this now.”

should receive additional scrutiny when paired with a sensitive or unusual request.

An attacker benefits when an employee feels that confirming the request would be inconvenient or inappropriate.

Create a Simple Verification Procedure

Law firms do not need an overly complicated policy to reduce this risk.

Start by defining which requests require additional verification. Financial transactions, changes to payment instructions, requests for credentials, and releases of confidential information are good places to begin.

Then determine how employees should verify those requests.

That could mean calling a phone number already stored in the firm’s records, contacting the person through a trusted internal channel, or following an established approval process.

Most importantly, employees should know that they have permission to stop before acting.

A simple statement can become an effective cybersecurity habit:

“Before I do this, I’m going to verify it.”

As phishing messages become more convincing, slowing down and verifying unusual behavior can be more valuable than trying to decide whether an email simply “looks fake.”

Cybersecurity Awareness Month is an excellent opportunity to make that expectation clear across your law firm.

How Artificial Intelligence May Affect Legal Malpractice Insurance

Artificial intelligence is becoming a regular part of everyday office operations. Many attorneys and law firms are already using AI in some form, whether they realize it or not.

A Question We’re Hearing From Clients

Recently, a client contacted me because he was concerned about whether using AI could affect the coverage provided by his legal malpractice insurance policy.

At this time, I am not aware of any changes to the policy forms used by the legal malpractice insurance carriers we work with. I am also not aware of any new exclusions, underwriting restrictions or major pricing changes specifically related to the use of AI.

What the Carriers Are Saying

Although we do not work with every carrier that offers legal malpractice insurance, we regularly work with four or five of them. I contacted several of those carriers to confirm their current positions.

As of right now, none of them have made changes to their policies or introduced specific exclusions related to AI. However, they did confirm that the use of artificial intelligence is being discussed regularly within the insurance industry.

Questions the Insurance Industry Is Considering

Carriers are considering questions such as:

  • Should policies include exclusions related to AI?
  • Should there be restrictions on coverage?
  • Should firms that use AI pay higher premiums?
  • Should carriers provide specific guidelines for using AI in a legal practice?

There are no definite changes to report at this time, but I do believe changes are likely coming.

Changes May Be Ahead

AI is being used more frequently in law firms and businesses of all kinds. Because of that, it is reasonable to expect insurance carriers to eventually address how AI use may affect coverage, underwriting and pricing.

Hopefully, carriers will also provide clear guidelines explaining how attorneys can use AI responsibly within their practices.

What Attorneys Should Know Right Now

For now, the important thing to know is that you are not the only attorney thinking about this issue. The legal malpractice carriers we work with have not made any policy changes yet, but the topic is actively being discussed.

If any changes are made, we will naturally be in touch with our clients to explain what has changed and how it may affect their coverage.

Have Questions About AI and Your Coverage?

If you have questions about how you are currently using AI in your practice, please do not hesitate to contact me. I would be happy to discuss your situation and involve the insurance carrier if necessary.

I’m Don I, your insurance guy.