Kim’s Hitting The Books Again — See Also

* The Supreme Court may soon hear a case involving a high school cheerleader’s Snapchat rant. Really hope the justices find a way to quote the movie Bring it On… [Washington Post]

* Reddit is facing a lawsuit for failing to remove child sexual abuse materials. [Verge]

* A former lawyer has published a memoir detailing some of the ugly parts of the legal profession she witnessed during her career. [New York Post]

* A lawsuit may soon reveal who the inventor of Bitcoin really is. [CNBC]

* A disgraced South Jersey lawyer is accused of gambling away around $2.4 million he conned from investors in a scheme involving fake Eagles tickets. This New Jersey lawyer should be doubly shamed for seemingly not supporting the Giants… [Daily Voice]

Despite All Expectations, Biglaw Had A Very Profitable 2020

(Image via Getty)

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

According to data collected for ALM’s Am Law 100 ranking, by what percentage on average did the 100 highest-grossing law firms increase their gross revenue in 2020?

Hint: In 2019 average gross revenue was up 5 percent, and 2020 was an even more successful year for Biglaw.

See the answer on the next page.

Crypto Hypocrisy

Crypto mining is hurting our ability to combat climate change and its impacts. Meanwhile, investors, including those that market themselves as part of a green future, have ignored crypto’s growing carbon footprint. Unsurprisingly, the lack of government oversight has also let the crypto industry grow without any meaningful guidance. And now, as the crypto community’s upcoming Crypto Climate Accord evinces, the slow pace of government and its inattentive policymakers have led to serious climate costs that we are already paying for.

Bitcoin, which uses a “proof of work” mechanism, is a dirty business. According to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF), if Bitcoin were a country, its estimated electricity consumption would be comparable to the Netherlands, New Zealand, or Argentina. Unfortunately, all signs like the rising value of tokens indicate that Bitcoin will use even greater energy over the next few years. As the CCAF’s Michel Rauchs explained, “It is really by design that Bitcoin consumes that much electricity. This is not something that will change in the future unless the Bitcoin price is going to significantly go down.”

The crypto community, however, asserts that energy use is not necessarily bad. The community argues, for example, that sending and storing emails also uses tremendous energy. But the community’s counterargument misses the obvious point, that email communication has a value to society at large while crypto, as of now, does not.

Tellingly, crypto’s climate costs have not deterred investors who have rushed to capitalize on the pivot to ESG investments and finance green businesses. Recently, Tesla, which has built a brand on zero-emission cars, purchased Bitcoins for its corporate treasury. Venmo, the popular payment transfer app, will now allow its customers to buy cryptocurrencies on its platform. We should not expect corporate America, even those with a “green” ethos, to manage their addiction to speculative finance.

Just as we did not trust Exxon to regulate itself, we should not trust the crypto community. The Crypto Climate Accord, which describes itself as “inspired by the Paris Climate Agreement,” is a private sector-led initiative focused on decarbonizing the cryptocurrency industry. The accord aspires to enable all of the world’s crypto technologies with 100% renewables. In a world where we still must compete for renewable energy, governments, not the crypto community, should decide whether we want to prioritize renewables for powering cities or for mining more bitcoins.


Ted Cruz Hates Court Packing. And Irony.

It’s Friday, and “Fat Wolverine” is trending on Twitter.

After getting a little R&R in Cancun, Ted Cruz is back in DC ready to stick it to the libs. Democrats have suggested that Joe Biden expand the Supreme Court, and Senator Machine Gun Bacon is not here for it.

“You didn’t see Republicans when we had control of the Senate try to rig the game,” he said in his manliest nasal twang. “You didn’t see us try to pack the court.”

And amazingly lightning failed to strike him on the spot. Although Senator Marsha Blackburn appears to be keeping her distance, just in case a vengeful deity decides to make itself known.

Because of course Republicans rigged the game when they had control of the Senate. They reduced the number of Supreme Court seats to eight for 387 days after inventing the fiction that justices could not possibly be confirmed during the final year of a president’s term. Immediately upon taking back the White House, they nuked the judicial filibuster for the Supreme Court to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch, they then disregarded their own precedent to jam through Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, just two weeks before the election.

When they didn’t hold the White House, Republicans filibustered Obama’s judicial nominees across the board. Then when Trump got elected, they discarded the blue slip procedure for circuit court nominees, whereby a home state senator could block a candidate, and then proceeded to jam through dozens of appellate judges.

They even reduced time for debate before invoking cloture on whichever thirty- or forty-something with scant experience and no ABA buy-in McConnell wanted to ram through on any given day.

None of which counts as rigging, according to very serious Harvard Law grad Rafael Edward Cruz. Unlike filling judicial vacancies when they occur under Democratic presidents, which is dastardly court packing.

“I believe that there is an activist base that is pressuring the president, that has been pressuring senior Senate Democrats to get judicial nominees on the DC Circuit to protect the regulations coming from this administration,” he thundered back in 2013 when Barack Obama sought to fill vacancies on the DC Circuit. “And I think any effort to pack the court because the administration doesn’t like the outcomes of judges applying the law fairly should be decried.”

Because if there’s one thing the senator cannot abide, it is an activist base.

As for the Fat Wolverine thing, well, we know Ted Cruz isn’t avoiding the barber because of covid restrictions. Which means that he must be doing the mutton chop mullet thing on purpose. Yikes.

Perhaps his hair stylist is part of the #Resistance. Is this a case of beauticial activism? You be the judge.


Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

My Not-So-Linear Journey To Law Firm Ownership

Ed. note: Please welcome Iffy Ibekwe to the pages of Above the Law. She will be writing about her experiences as the owner of a small law firm.

When I was a little girl growing up in the Middle East (Dubai, Riyadh, and Doha), I never imagined myself as a lawyer. My dad was a pediatric radiologist, and my mom stayed at home. I thought I would grow up to be a physician as well. My first passion was art, and while my parents supported and lavishly funded my art hobby, they disapproved of art as a career — you know, fears about housing a starving artist and all. So, in college, I halfheartedly pursued pre-med (the wholeheartedly accepted profession of many an immigrant parent!).

September 11, 2001, was the pivotal day that led me away from medicine. If the world was coming to an end, I did not want to be in organic chemistry or genetics class. I heeded my longing for artistic expression and switched my major to creative advertising, where I thrived and received recognition as a student. That joy was short-lived. I learned that advertising jobs are always the first to go in a recession like we were experiencing post-9/11. Again, I felt lost.

When searching for what to do next, my brother reminded me that I loved to argue — still do, by the way — and asked if I would consider pursuing law. I Googled (probably Ask Jeeves-ed in 2001) how to become a lawyer. The lack of prerequisite courses is why I decided to take the LSAT and attend law school, which almost as good as becoming a doctor for Nigerian parents. Compelling, no?

Before I attended law school, I was an A student, killing it with ease on exams. In law school, I was not a stand-out student. My 1L year was the first time in my life that I didn’t enjoy learning or feel like I belonged. On top of the 1L stress, loneliness, and competition, my dad was terminally ill with cancer. My law school career was a crisis in confidence. I didn’t know then that the legal system was not built for people like me. (According to a 2020 study by the American Bar Association, only 5% of all attorneys are Black, even though 13.4% of the United States’ population is Black.) I didn’t have any mentors, allies, or much guidance through the legal educational process. It seemed that so many of my classmates had dads, uncles, and friends who reserved jobs for them — some in Biglaw, clerkships, and apprenticeships. Back then, I knew I would not thrive in Biglaw with ease — and honestly, it still isn’t a place where I would feel welcomed.

TL;DR: I survived, graduated from law school, and passed the bar (the second time).

I spent the first 11 years of my career in nonprofit school law, speaking and presenting legal concepts to fellow lawyers, clients, and education professionals. In those 11 years, I got married and birthed three children in pretty rapid succession; this did not bode well for a Black woman with hopes of shattering a glass ceiling. A ceiling I now know is fiction. As I was often exhausted from caretaking, family life, and sleep deprivation, I also grew tired of the in-house desk job. I knew I needed to get out and seek more creativity in my work.

The creative decision was made for me as I was fired shortly after returning from my third maternity leave in five years. Plot twist! I spiraled into depression, shame, and reputational bruising. In retrospect, I am not bitter about the termination because I was not great at my job, and I needed to exit. So thank you, God, for that release into what I do now!

But before my now mature response, I experienced a lot of soul-searching and wondered whether I was worthy of being a lawyer.

Am I smart enough? I didn’t ace law school or pass the bar exam the first time.

Is law for someone like me? I certainly didn’t look like the vast majority of my colleagues.

Am I necessary to the profession? So few of us exist.

Thankfully, I didn’t stay in that doom spiral forever. I applied to many legal jobs with no success. Finally, my husband questioned why (for the umpteenth time) I was so averse to hanging my shingle. I decided to prove him wrong by setting up a law office to show him that no one was interested in my services. However, I was soon hired, and after the dopamine hit of a paid invoice, I was hooked.

When I started my practice, I took anything that hit my inbox. One day, my preschool mom friend asked me whether I did wills. She worked for a financial planner, and the attorney who was getting repeated referral business was putting the wrong names on the wills. Imagine that.

An attorney. At a will signing. Had the wrong clients’ names on the documents.

I knew I could do better than that mediocre (insert side-eye) guy who was getting referral business. I told my financial planner friend, “I do now!”

I dove headfirst into learning everything I could about estate planning. I didn’t have any personal or professional connections to usher me into an estate planning law firm. (People who look like me do not fit the role of someone who traditionally has access to estate planning.) I took courses, cold-called attorneys, and shamelessly asked questions on Facebook lawyer groups, which like Facebook mom groups, can be a hotbed of drama, judgment, bigotry, and shame. So, I had to cobble it all together. I created what seemed aligned to me and tested it to see if it would work.

I pivoted to market my firm from a woman’s gaze, using my voice. For law, this is unusual as the law (and America) is white male-dominated.

Remember that stat about 5% of lawyers being Black?

Preparing women with estate plans is how I play my part to end inequality and unfair disadvantages due to racism, sexism, classism, and other barriers that keep women from building and transferring generational wealth. I show women how to continue to call the shots for their people and pursuits while preserving their voices in decision-making. The idea that wealth and advancement belongs exclusively to a specific group or class will never sit right with me.

My journey to becoming a lawyer and law firm owner is not Clair Huxtable inspired. Rather than a plan, I stayed open to possibilities, which is ironic now that I am an estate “planner.” Any journey to firm ownership can be equally messy, yet successful.

Please feel free to send any constructive comments or questions to me at iffywrites@ibekwelaw.com. I would also love to hear your topic suggestions!


Iffy Ibekwe is the principal attorney and founder of Ibekwe Law, PLLC. She is an estate planning attorney evangelist for intergenerational wealth transfer with effective wills and trusts. Iffy is writing her first book on culturally competent estate planning, available in 2022 (prayers up!). She graduated from The University of Texas School of Law and has practiced law for over 14 years. Iffy can be reached by email at iffywrites@ibekwelaw.com, on her website, and on Instagram @thejustincaselawyer.

Where Do International Judges Go To School?

Ed. note: This article first appeared on The Juris Lab, a forum where “data analytics meets the law.”

In the U.S., most federal judges have studied at a small, elite group of law schools.  As Iuliano and Stewart (2016) explain, 48% of federal judges who attended law school came from only 20 different law schools — with Harvard being the most represented law school at every level of the federal judiciary.   Eight of the nine current Supreme Court Justices studied law at two schools: Harvard and Yale.  The Harvard-Yalification of the Supreme Court is the subject of debate about the value of diversity, as well as elitism, in the federal judiciary.  

Where are international judges educated?  Some legal scholars, Iuliano and Stewart, supra, included, distinguish between “surface-level” and  “deep-level” diversity on courts.  Deep-level diversity is, broadly speaking, diversity in attributes that are not readily observable but still crucially important.  Education is one such attribute that may have a significant impact on group decision-making, innovation, and consideration of diverse perspectives.

At the international level, research on the diversity of judges on international adjudicative bodies is limited.  However, as Terris, Romano, and Swigart (2007) explain, international judges generally have diverse backgrounds owing to the wide geographic scope and differing legal systems relevant to international courts’ purview.  As it pertains to educational background, international judges have more educational diversity than some U.S. federal courts, although some elite institutions like Harvard, Yale, the University of Paris, Cambridge, and the University of London and the like are often represented. 

From the work of Swigart and Terris (2013), we know that as of 2012, international judges typically obtain multiple degrees in law and generally obtain their first degree in their home country.  Two thirds study abroad, often in Europe, the United Kingdom, or the U.S., earning an LLM.  However, do these trends hold almost a decade later?   

We can look to the judges on six of the most active international courts to find an answer.  Those courts are: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), European Court of Justice (ECJ), European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).  These are by no means all of the courts active today, but they are some of the largest, most active, and oldest international courts.  Currently, 150 judges serve on these six courts.

On average, judges obtained over two degrees, most obtaining three degrees, and from one degree up to seven degrees.  As Swigart and Terris (2013) found over nine years ago, two-thirds of international judges studied abroad at some point in their education.  Of these judges, 19% studied in the United Kingdom, 16% studied in the U.S. and 16% studied in France.

To start, 81% of judges obtained their first degree in their home country.  Thus, 19% obtained their first degree abroad.  For those studying abroad for their first degree, most study in France, followed by the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Italy, and South Korea.  In total, institutions in the United Kingdom, the U.S., France, Italy, and Belgium have awarded the most degrees to the currently serving international judges.  Those five countries (out of 71 different countries) have awarded 36% of all the degrees obtained by the judges.  The U.S., the United Kingdom, and France are the most popular destinations for obtaining additional degrees.

Of the advanced degrees obtained by the judges, LLM is the most popular degree with 92 judges obtaining one, followed by 51 judges obtaining PhDs, 10 MAs, and 7 JSD or SJD.  The ECJ has the highest percentage of LLMs, with 72% of the judges having one.  Over half of the judges at all the other courts, except the IACHR, have LLMs. When it comes to PhDs, more than half of the judges on the IACHR and ITLOS have obtained one.

Of the judges considered, 41 or 27% of the judges are women.  In obtaining LLMs, women have obtained them at a higher rate where 68% of the women have LLMs as compared with 59% of the men.  Men and women appear to obtain PhDs at the same rate of 34%.

[Note: Only schools with at least four degrees are included in the graph.]

The current judges obtained degrees from 214 different institutions.  Charles University and Harvard University have awarded the most degrees, followed closely by the University of Cambridge.  The degrees of the international judges come from a much wider distribution of institutions than in the U.S., as discussed above.  However, Harvard — once again — claims a top spot in awarding degrees to international judges. Yet, the diversity of educational training at the international level appears robust.  Judges on international courts should be bringing a wide variety of views on the law and legal systems to bear on the matters that come before them.

Jamie Schlegel provided excellent research assistance in collecting the data used in this post.

Read more at The Juris Lab … 

Taylor Dalton is a PhD candidate in USC’s Political Science and International Relations (POIR) program. His research focuses broadly on international law, foreign relations law, international courts and tribunals, the laws of war, arms control, and global governance of cybersecurity threats.  Before his doctoral studies, Taylor was a civil litigator practicing in Orange County, California. He graduated from Cornell Law School with both a JD and LLM in International and Comparative Law. While at Cornell, he studied international law in Suzhou, China at Soochow University and the United Kingdom at the University College London. Before law school, Taylor was a copy editor for a newswire service. He graduated from USC with a BA in Philosophy and Political Science.

GPS


Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

Kirkland Sweetens Associate Perks With Free Food

(Image via Getty)

The wealthiest law firm out there joined the special bonus march back in, well, March. But it turns out the firm wasn’t quite done rewarding its associates for the work they do to keep cash gushing through the door like the blood tide from the Shining.

The firm just announced that associates can go ahead and expense 10 non-work meals up to $100 each. The firm isn’t picky about just picking up associate tabs — attorneys are allowed to expense meals with anyone they want.

As a tipster wrote:

So, like, if you have still managed to have friends after spending time in biglaw, you can treat them to dinner.

Well, yes, you would need to still have friends. But maybe this can be the incentive to reach out and reconnect with some people. It’s $1000 of free food, folks. That’s a fantastic gesture.

When Davis Polk offered associates gift packages in addition to special bonuses, we discussed how important it is to give associates gifts they have to use for their own enjoyment. The grind can be dehumanizing and big bonuses are great and essential but the temptation to dump that all into loan repayment is real. And even if that’s the best life decision, it still leaves you on the back end feeling a little hollow as you go right back to working without feeling like you got anything tangible out of it. So give an extra grand or so in goods and services that associates need to experience. A nice meal, a vacation, an exercise machine… whatever.

Because there’s a distinction between appreciating associates for the work they do and appreciating associates for what the work does to them.


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Enter your email address to sign up for ATL’s Bonus & Salary Increase Alerts.

Kim Kardashian’s Law School Experience Has More Bikini Photoshoots Than Most

Image via Instagram

This is… not how I remember law school.

Listen, everything about Kim Kardashian’s life is different from most people. She inhabits a world of glamour/artifice that makes pretty much everything a little unrelatable, and that goes for her law school experience too. (Okay, technically Kim isn’t in law school, what with not having a bachelor’s degree and all. But she is studying via apprenticeship to be a lawyer, and she even has plans to take the bar exam in 2022.)

In a recent Insta post Kim K. posts pics of her ostensibly studying… all the while preening for the ubiquitous photographer in her life. Which is, not the best method for acing law school tests.

Some of Kim K.’s famous friends responded to the post, with country music star Kacey Musgraves quipping, “Elle Woods wishes,” and TV personality Jonathan Cheban commenting, “What law school is this??? Asking for a friend LOL.”

Faithful Above the Law readers will be familiar with Kim’s social media documentation of the process. She shared a criminal law issue spotter that cast Justin Bieber as a criminal mastermind and Tiger King hypos, complained about the fact that law student life sucks, explained that she neglected her Keeping Up With the Kardashians livetweeting duties to keep up with torts homework, bailed on summer holiday festivities as she continued with her contracts homework, and dealt with personalized questions all about her. She even has a favorite law professor — University of Washington contracts professor Steve Calandrillo — who she’s shouted out on Insta. Though occasionally she has a “just like us” moment, like when she posted about shooting tequila while studying torts.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Pandemic’s Surge Of Online Activity Creates Bonanza For Cybercriminals 

Most people have heard the old adage, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” often in reference to a political agenda. But with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, cybercriminals have taken the advice.

“This pandemic forced 10 years of digital transformation in three or four months,” said Jeremy A. Grant, the managing director of technology business strategy in the cybersecurity practice at Venable LLP, which he described as boutique cybersecurity advisory practice within Venable that works closely with attorneys. Grant also led the program office of National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, an initiative of the Obama Administration. 

Grant said that when the pandemic hit, companies had to scramble to secure their networks. On the consumer side there was “direct fraud that came with the virtual elimination of in-person transactions,” he added. Everything from government services to the financial sector to retail shifted online. Criminals took advantage because a lot of the tools used to verify identity on the internet “aren’t as sophisticated as we want them to be.”

State unemployment systems were hit especially hard because most of them don’t have good online verification tools, Grant noted.

A March update from the U.S. Department of Labor indicates that “at least $89 billion of the estimated $896 billion in [unemployment benefits provided in response to the pandemic] could be paid improperly, with a significant portion attributable to fraud.” And this is only if the percentage of improper payments stays in line with recent trends. The real number is likely to be much higher.

“States have been hemorrhaging money,” Grant said.

To make matters worse, the states have been slow to wade through the mess of fraudulent claims, meaning legitimate applicants for unemployment benefits have had to wait and then wait some more. If people can’t clear the state’s identity system, Grant said, they’re stuck for months in “this Kafkaesque hell” where they can’t prove who they are and can’t pay their rent.

Identity Theft

Nor have cyber-grifters restricted themselves to unemployment benefits. Overall, losses due to identity theft rose from $502.5 billion in 2019 to $712.4 billion in 2020, an increase of 42 percent “primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” according to a survey and report by Aite Group LLC, a research and consulting firm. The report also estimates that losses from identity theft will reach $721.3 billion in 2021 before leveling off to $621.3 billion in 2022.

The explosion in cybercrime does not surprise Joseph V. DeMarco, a partner at DeMarco Law, PLLC, who counsels clients on information privacy and security, computer intrusions, and online fraud, among other things. DeMarco is also a member of the faculty for the Practising Law Institute’s programs on cyber law.

Cybercriminals will use “the fact of the pandemic to trick people into doing things like clicking on a link or responding to emails” to get at their sensitive personal information, DeMarco said. He witnessed the same kinds of increases after the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Sandy.

“The reason some of these are so successful is that they play on people’s sympathy, their fear, their desire to do something in a tough situation,” DeMarco said. “Particularly in the early days of the pandemic when all everyone was thinking was, ‘Do I have enough canned beans in my cupboard?’”

Fraudulent messages from government agencies are a common ploy, DeMarco added, such as a fake warning from the Centers for Disease Control or the state health department. People see supposed information about the pandemic, anxiety overrides caution, and they click. Most recently, these ploys have been related to the Covid-19 vaccine.

Government loan programs have also been leveraged by criminals, who might trick people into submitting a fake application to capture personal financial details, or use fraudulently obtained information to apply for loans to which they’re not entitled, DeMarco continued.

Grant reported that phishing attacks have skyrocketed over the last few years. In addition to pandemic-related messages, the lure might be pornography, hair loss remedies, “anything they think people will click on,” he said.

For a long time inserting malware onto a person’s machine and phishing were neck and neck as the preferred methods of cybercriminals, Grant explained. “Then we hit an inflection point when phishing grew exponentially.” Malware requires a certain level of sophistication, he said. Phishing is easier. If a cybercriminal “sends thousands of emails and gets only a small percentage to click, it’s still a good result.”

Remote Work and Cyber-hygiene

And of course, the prevalence of working from home during the pandemic has created problems. “It is imperative for people to be working on secure computers,” DeMarco said. Organizations need to “make sure computer systems are up to date with antivirus software that is managed by the IT department.”

DeMarco also recommended having employees log in through a secure connection — a virtual private network, or VPN, as opposed to a website.

In a recent article on cyber-hygiene, quoted here by permission, DeMarco said employees need to avoid using personal email accounts. “Many major webmail providers have . . . suffered data breaches in recent years and these non-enterprise email accounts usually lack the robust protections that centrally-managed commercial accounts often have, such as multi-factor authentication or logs that would help a forensic investigator determine the cause and scope of a breach.” 

Cloud-based backups for personal computers may also cause problems. “Files may even be synching from the employee’s personal computer to the cloud without their knowledge. Employees should be advised to search these accounts for any work-related data on the personal cloud accounts and permanently delete it,” according to the article.

If a company fails to direct its workers to follow these protocols, it could very well find itself in litigation. “It really does depend on how [a breach] happened,” DeMarco said. “If you fall victim to a scammer through no fault of your own then you might have recourse against the person who enabled the fraud.”

He offered the example of a client whose real-estate closing went awry. “Just prior to closing they got an email from someone telling them where to send the funds, but the attorneys’ system was hacked by bad guys.”

As a result, the funds were misdirected. In such a case, “the seller’s attorneys might have some liability to the purchaser for allowing their system to get hacked,” DeMarco said. It all depends on the facts, but a failure to instruct employees on good cyber-hygiene certainly would not help.

Improving Online Verification

Aside from simple precautions that employees can take at home, businesses and public entities are working furiously to improve online verification systems. The latest coronavirus stimulus relief package from the federal government included nearly $2 billion to improve cybersecurity. Grant noted that good commercial services exist to help governments and businesses solve this problem.

He also mentioned the FIDO Alliance, which describes itself on its website as “an open industry association with a focused mission: authentication standards to help reduce the world’s over-reliance on passwords.”

According to Grant, FIDO — Fast Identity Online — is an industry standard developed and supported by governments and more than 250 companies, including tech titans Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Facebook, as well as “anyone who makes a browser, any company that manufactures chips, plus a number of big banks, payment firms, and security vendors.”

The alliance has agreed on a “set of standards that are now embedded in almost any device you buy,” Grant said, that combines an on-device biometric match with public-key cryptography to enable password-free authentication that is both more secure and easier to use. Launched eight years ago, FIDO standards have achieved significant global acceptance.

“I’m a little on the optimistic side,” Grant said. “We can rally around new means of verification. There has been a dedicated industry effort to get to something better.”

For the latest on cybersecurity, visit PLI’s programs: Twenty-Second Annual Institute on Privacy and Cybersecurity Law and Cybersecurity Best Practices for Lawyers 2021. Click here for additional programs.


Elizabeth M. Bennett was a business reporter who moved into legal journalism when she covered the Delaware courts, a beat that inspired her to go to law school. After a few years as a practicing attorney in the Philadelphia region, she decamped to the Pacific Northwest and returned to freelance reporting and editing.