Clark Hill was 'duped by an obvious scam,' costing its client $1.1M, suit alleges
Hackers posing as a client persuaded law firm Clark Hill to send $1.1 million from a lawsuit settlement to the wrong bank account, according to an April 22 suit. (Image from Shutterstock)
Hackers posing as a client persuaded law firm Clark Hill to send $1.1 million from a lawsuit settlement to the wrong bank account, according to an April 22 suit.
Clark Hill was “duped by an obvious scam” perpetrated by hackers who infiltrated the email accounts of its engineering and manufacturing client Sinacom North America, the suit alleges.
The scammers were able to use Sinacom North America email addresses to ask the firm to wire money to a different bank account than the one initially provided.
Reuters has coverage of the suit, which alleges malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.
Clark Hill never spoke with Sinacom North America’s president by phone to verify that the new wiring instructions were correct, nor did it check whether the corporate bank account set to receive the money was for a real company, according to the suit, filed in Pennsylvania state court in Philadelphia County.
Firm partner Steven Richman did, however, leave a single voicemail for Sinacom North America’s president in which he acknowledged that someone may have sent messages through the president’s email, the suit says.
Otherwise, Richman “incredibly” communicated entirely with the president’s compromised email account and sought to verify the new wiring instructions this way, the suit alleges.
The scammers told Richman that the wiring instructions were correct.
As a result, Richman and Clark Hill “recklessly wired” $1.1 million to the wrong bank account “and then failed to realize their egregious mistake until it was too late,” the suit says. Clark Hill and Richman are both named as defendants.
Clark Hill provided this statement to the ABA Journal on behalf of the firm and Richman: “Naturally, all of the facts are not contained in the filed complaint. We will be defending the firm as the case moves forward and will have nothing further to add at this time.”
