Scam Alert – Professional Liability Renewal Spoof

If you receive the following e-mail it is a scam:

Subject line: Professional Liability Renewal April – May 2013:

I would like to review and Possibly lower your Professional Liability Insurance Premiums. I developed a relationship with a firm ( A rated companies and better ) that have saved 20-30% and thousands of dollars for some friends. To review yours, all we need is your last years application and declaration page. (fax 214.853.5846) If interested, email my assistant Ms Mindy Harris at mharris@universalfg.com or call me at 972-386-6639.

Mark S. Pincus
JP Morgan International Plaza III
14241 Dallas Parkway, Suite 650
Dallas, Texas 75254
mark@universalfg.com
www.universalfg.com

This e-mail is a phishing scam

  • An independent Google search of “Universalfg” returns no pertinent results.
  • Following the link listed in the signature line takes the user to www.universalfg.com, a poorly written site with grammar and punctuation errors.
  • While the phone numbers on the site match those listed in the spoof e-mail, there is no physical address included on the site. No legitimate insurer would fail to include a physical address on its Web site.
  • The About Us page lists Mindy Harris as a partner – not an assistant – contradicting the e-mail.
  • The About Us page contains an outdated photograph caption from 2011.
  • The About Us page lists two employees – a managing partner (the purported sender of this e-mail) and Mindy Harris, identified as a “partner.” There are no other employees, which seems odd for the scope of services provided by this “business.”
  • The last blog post on the site is dated July 2011.
  • The Address Bar icon that appears in the URL of the blog is a black and white4-23-2013 7-10-08 PM glamour shot of a woman. This is inappropriate imagery for a professional insurer.

The Professional Liability Fund is the sole provider of primary
malpractice coverage for Oregon lawyers

  • There are no private insurers from whom you can purchase the statutorily required coverage in Oregon.
  • Coverage rates are proposed by the Professional Liability Fund Board of Directors and approved by the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors.
  • Oregon lawyers do not complete an “application form” for primary plan coverage. [Granted, there is a form for Excess Coverage.]
  • “Renewals” of Professional Liability Fund coverage occur annually at year-end, not in “April-May.” Some lawyers elect to pay their assessment on a quarterly basis. E-mail notices are usually sent to bar members in November for the coming year. Additional e-notices follow. Payment is made through the secure member login on the Oregon State Bar Web site.

If you have questions regarding your Professional Liability Fund payment, please contact the PLF Accounting Department at 1-800-452-1639.

If you have been a victim of an Internet scam or have received an e-mail that you believe was an attempted scam, please file a complaint with one of the following:

Consider attending our CLE: Protecting Your Firm and Your Clients from Scams, Fraud, and Financial Loss – May 16, 2013.

Law Firm Falls Victim to Scam, Sued by Bank

If this headline doesn’t catch your attention, I’m not sure what will. Here is Sharon Nelson’s latest post on Ride the Lightning:

“It continues to amaze me how law firms fall for phishing scams, sometimes believing that they might have a potential client and sometimes, as here, clicking where they shouldn’t click. The latest law firm is Wallace & Pittman PLLC in North Carolina who reportedly got scammed to the tune of over $300,000.00. And it only went downhill from there.

The scam started with a batch of e-mails in May supposedly from an industry group saying that a transaction hadn’t cleared properly. These e-mails directed readers to click on a link to resolve the problem. Apparently, someone at the law firm did, which allowed hackers to install a keylogger on at least one law firm computer.

After figuring out the law firm’s online banking passwords, the hackers directed their bank, Park Sterling, to send a $336,600.01 transfer through JPMorgan Chase & Co. to a “Konstantin Pomogalove” in Moscow, according to a legal document filed by the law firm. As soon as the law firm received a confirmation of the transaction, it called the bank to cancel it, but it was too late. The bank initially refunded the stolen funds to the law firm’s account.

Later, the bank demanded the funds be returned. State and federal law does not compel banks to restore funds lost through fraudulent activity for commercial customers so long as the bank has reasonable security in effect.

But before the bank could debit the fund, the law firm obtained a restraining order against the bank, removed its funds and closed the account, igniting a lawsuit by the bank.

Park Sterling argues in court papers that Wallace & Pittman did not use an extra layer of security that would require two people to authorize wire transactions and that the request looked legitimate. It also said its customer agreement with the firm places the burden of loss on the customer.

Though the firm uses wire transfers regularly for real estate transactions, this was the first to go outside the country which the firm argues should have raised suspicion enough to put a hold on the transactions. Unsurprisingly, the firm questions the security practices of the bank.

Trial is scheduled for the fall.

There are conflicting cases on whether banks can be held liable, though most have found that they can be, putting a higher burden on information security for banks. My initial take, without having all the facts, is that a bank which suddenly received a high-figure transfer out of the country from a firm which has never done that before should sure as heck have flagged the transaction as potential fraud. And Wallace & Pittman needs to institute two-person authorizations and do some serious employee training!”

Learn how to avoid falling victim to such scams by attending “Protecting Your Firm and Your Clients from Fraud, Scams, and Financial Loss” on May 16 at the OSB Center. Registration open now – visit the PLF Web site > Upcoming Seminars.

Are You Using the New Model Contingent Fee Agreement Explanation?

Effective January 1, 2013, Oregon RPC 1.8(e) was amended to follow the corresponding ABA Model Rule.  Lawyers are now expressly allowed to provide financial assistance in the form of advancing court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter.  Lawyers are also permitted to pay court costs and expenses on behalf of indigent clients.

Before the change, lawyers were required to state in their fee agreements that clients remained responsible for the costs and expenses of litigation regardless of the outcome of the case.  The Oregon State Bar approved Model Explanation of Contingent Fee Agreement – derived from ORS 20.340 – mirrored this requirement.

With the amendment to Oregon RPC 1.8(e), the Oregon State Bar revised the Model Explanation to allow for three alternatives that a lawyer may choose in undertaking representation of a contingent fee case:

  1. The client repays the costs regardless of the outcome of the matter;
  2. The client repays the costs only if the lawyer recovers money for the client; or
  3. The client does not repay the costs regardless of the outcome of the case.

 [See Item 7A of the February 22, 2013 BOG Agenda.]

The new Model Explanation, with an effective date of February 22, 2013, is available on the PLF Web site > Practice Aids and Forms > Engagement Letters and is attached to our sample PLF Contingent Fee Agreements.  The new Model Explanation may also be found on the Oregon State Bar Web site and will be added to the Fee Agreement Compendium in BarBooks. Here is a direct link:

Oregon State Bar Model Explanation of Contingent Fee Agreement

All Rights Reserved 2013 Beverly Michaelis

Why You Should Build the Cost of Doing Business Into Your Fee

Credit card merchant fees (“check out” fees) are back in the news with the recent preliminary class action settlement between retailers and credit card giants Visa and MasterCard. Lawyers who accept credit cards often ask whether they can pass these fees on to their clients.  It is unlikely the settlement will change the landscape for lawyers, but I’d like to set that discussion aside for a moment and focus on something more fundamental: how should lawyers treat costs not related to a specific client matter?

I have long believed that most overhead costs, including postage, photocopies, faxing, and even merchant fees should be built into the lawyer’s fee structure.  Bundling the cost of doing business into your hourly rate or flat fee just makes sense.

For the lawyer, cost accounting becomes significantly easier.  Say goodbye to:

  • Inputting client codes or making a log entry every time postage is used or a document is scanned
  • Totaling charges for each billing cycle and incorporating them into the client’s bill
  • Allocating client payments to costs and fees – in your books, the client’s account receivable, and on the client’s billing statement

Avoiding this time suck can make a world of difference in a solo’s life – especially if he or she has no staff.  Time spent tracking, totaling, billing, and allocating these costs can be used more profitably working on a client matter.

From the client’s perspective, receiving a statement with every stamp, copy, and fax itemized and billed can be very unpleasant.  Clients often feel these costs should be included in your fee, regardless of your billing practices. Ask yourself: would you rather pay one flat rate to fly from Portland, Oregon to Chicago, Illinois, or incur separate charges for airfare, fees, taxes, booking, baggage, and food?  If you are aggravated by the latter, it becomes easier to understand why clients don’t like it when lawyers pass on every penny of overhead costs in an itemized bill.

Getting back to the original subject – merchant or “check out” fees – consider the real-world effect of the preliminary Visa/MasterCard settlement:

“We have discussed the settlement with many, many merchants, and not a single merchant we have spoken to plans to surcharge,” Craig Shearman, spokesman for the National Retail Federation (NRF), said in a statement….

NBC News contacted some of the country’s largest retailers. Wal-Mart, Target, Sears and Home Depot said they have no plans to add a credit card surcharge.

“The bottom line is that … the vast majority don’t want to surcharge even if they could,” the NRF’s Shearman said.

Ed Mierzwinski, Director of Consumer Programs at U.S. PIRG agrees.

In the brick-and-mortar world, no one who does any sort of volume business is going to want to surcharge because it will drive their customer crazy and slow down transactions,” Mierzwinski said.

Is there a lesson here for those who provide professional services?

Lawyers can charge “check out” fees to clients who pay by credit card, but it requires jumping through hurdles no one bothers with (a signed fee agreement with the client consenting to the charge accompanied by compliance with Regulation Z of the Truth-in-Lending Act.)  If it should become easier to charge clients “check out” fees in the future – as a result of this settlement (when finalized) or for other reasons – I would continue to advocate lawyers build this cost of doing business into their charge for services.  In the words of Susan Cartier Liebel, “Don’t Nickel and Dime Your Clients. Just Don’t.”

For an excellent discussion of the philosophy and practices involved in billing costs, see Billing Costs, “Fee Agreement Compendium” (Oregon State Bar 2007) available online in BarBooks.

Copyright 2013

Beverly Michaelis

Stop Scams With Fraud Protection Services

Posted today on the Professional Liability Fund Web site for your consideration:

Don’t Get Scammed!  Consider Fraud Prevention Services

If you are concerned about fraudulent activity on your IOLTA or business bank account, ask your bank about fraud prevention services like Positive Pay and Automated Clearing House (ACH) “block and filter” for automated transactions.

Do Checks Presented for Payment Match the Checks You Wrote?

With Positive Pay, the bank customer transmits electronic files of the checks it issues to the bank. The bank then compares the checks presented for payment with the electronic file sent by the bank customer.  If a check presented for payment does not match, the customer is notified immediately.

Has a Payee’s Name Been Altered?

Payee Positive Pay provides additional protection by helping bank customers detect and prevent alteration of payee names on checks.  The customer provides the bank with a list of approved payees.  Deposited checks and checks presented at the teller line are compared and verified against the approved payee list.  The customer is notified of any non-matching payee names.  Reverse Positive Pay (RPP) is also available. With RPP, the bank generates an electronic file of all items paid on a daily basis.  The customer receives the file and compares the paid items with the customer’s own records.  In the event of a discrepancy, the customer can inform the bank in time to make a return decision, i.e., the customer can instruct the bank to dishonor the check.

Do You Want to Block or Control Automated Transactions Posted to Your Account?

ACH block and filter services provide this protection.  With “block and filter” the customer can:

  • Set criteria to authorize ACH debits or credits to the customer’s account
  • Exclude specified ACH debits or credits
  • Block all ACH debits
  • Block all ACH credits
  • Block both ACH debits and credits

Are Fraud Prevention Services Right for Your Law Firm?

When assessing whether fraud prevention services make sense for your firm, consider the following:

  • Do you or a trusted, authorized staff person have the time to generate and review electronic reports for potential non-matching transactions?  (Unauthorized ACH transactions must be challenged within 24 hours.)
  • Can your system generate the electronic files needed for transaction comparison?  If not, does your bank offer compatible software, and at what cost?
  • Are you willing to pay for fraud prevention services?  Banks offering Positive Pay, Payee Positive Pay, Reverse Positive Pay, or equivalent services generally charge per transaction or item presented.

At the very least, it is worth talking to your banker and reviewing the services your bank offers.

Copyright Beverly Michaelis

2013

Are Click-Through Fee Agreements Ethical?

If you are working to establish a paperless or virtual practice, you may have struggled with the issue of how to transform your paper-based fee agreements.  Oregon Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(c) provides, in part:

A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge or collect:

* * * (3) a fee denominated as “earned on receipt,” “non-refundable” or in similar terms unless it is pursuant to a written agreement signed by the client …   OSB Formal Opinion 2005-151 [Revised 2011].

There is no doubt that a printed fee agreement signed by the client fits the definition of a “written agreement signed by the client.”  But what if you and the client arrange to sign the fee agreement electronically using DocuSign or a similar service?  Or perhaps you’ve set up a virtual law practice and intend to use clickwrap or click-through fee agreements.  Is a click-through fee agreement a “written agreement signed by the client?”

To answer this question, take a look at Rule 1.0(q) of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs):

(q) “Writing” or “written” denotes a tangible or electronic record of a communication or representation, including handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photography, audio or videorecording and e-mail. A “signed” writing includes an electronic sound, symbol or process attached to or logically associated with a writing and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the writing.

The rule tells us that:

  • Written fee agreements can be tangible (paper) or electronic
  • Signatures include a “process attached to or logically associated with a writing and … adopted by a person with the intent to sign the writing.”

Therefore, a clickwrap or click-through fee agreement is “a written agreement signed by the client” provided the click-through process is adopted by client with the intent to sign the fee agreement.  To ensure that your clickwrap or click-through fee agreements are ethically compliant, incorporate a step requiring the client to agree or consent to the click-through process.  I also suggest you discuss the click-through process with your client over the phone if possible – give them a heads-up so they know what to expect.  More importantly, make sure they understand they that the click-through agreement is a legally binding contract with the same enforceability of a printed fee agreement signed in ink.

Copyright 2013 Beverly Michaelis

The Year in Review – Useful Tips You May Have Missed

Thank you readers!  I hope this has been a fruitful year for you.  Just in case you missed a tip or two, here is a list of 2012 blog posts for your perusal:

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

All Rights Reserved 2012 Beverly Michaelis