Deepfake, phishing and wire-fraud training built around the scenarios that actually target legal practices.
Law firms hold the two things attackers want in one place: confidential client information and client money moving on a predictable schedule. A firm handling a real estate closing or a settlement disbursement is a firm with a known, dated, six-figure wire in its future.
The attack that works is not technically sophisticated. It is a cloned voice on a phone call, or an email from a partner's genuinely compromised mailbox, arriving on the day everyone expects wire instructions. Technology alone does not stop it, because nothing about the request looks anomalous to a mail filter.
What AI-cloned audio actually sounds like on a phone line, why partner authority makes staff comply, and the verbal callback procedure that defeats it regardless of how convincing the voice is.
Recognising a genuinely compromised internal mailbox — the hardest case, because the email is real. Thread hijacking, lookalike domains, and last-minute changes to banking details.
The three delivery channels, run as simulations against your own firm so the results reflect your staff rather than an industry average.
Dual-control approval thresholds, out-of-band verification, and vendor banking-change holds — the procedural controls that stop a fraudulent wire after every technical control has failed.
What Rule 1.1 technology competence and Rule 1.6(c) reasonable efforts mean in practice, and what Formal Opinion 483 added regarding monitoring and client notification.
Completion records and simulation results in the form underwriters ask for at renewal, since most carriers now require evidence of a training programme.
Training that happens once a year, as a video nobody watches, produces a completion certificate and no behaviour change. What works is short, frequent and specific to the firm.
The procedural output matters as much as the training. A pre-shared verbal passphrase for wires above a set threshold is the single most effective control against voice-cloned fraud, because no AI can reproduce a secret that exists only in two people's memory.
The same programme applies wherever staff can move money or release sensitive records on instruction: title and escrow companies, CPA firms during tax season, medical practices handling patient records, and construction firms paying subcontractors. The scenarios change; the control set does not.
A recurring programme that teaches attorneys and staff to recognise and correctly respond to phishing, voice-cloned phone calls, business email compromise and fraudulent wire instructions. For law firms it is delivered against the specific scenarios that target legal practices, particularly fraudulent instructions on trust-account transfers, and it produces the documentation ABA obligations and cyber insurers expect.
ABA Model Rule 1.1 requires technology competence and Rule 1.6(c) requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorised disclosure of client information. Formal Opinion 483 added a duty to monitor for breaches and notify affected clients. Training is how most firms evidence that those efforts were in fact reasonable.
The defence is procedural rather than technical. Use a pre-shared verbal passphrase for transfers above a set threshold, verify out of band on a phone number stored in advance rather than one supplied in the request, require dual-control approval on wires, and hold any last-minute change to banking details for independent confirmation.
Short modules on a recurring schedule with ongoing simulations outperform a single annual session. An annual video produces a completion record; frequent, specific practice produces the pause before someone acts on a fraudulent instruction.
Most carriers now ask about it at application or renewal, and several require evidence of a programme before they will quote. Completion records and simulation results are the artefacts underwriters typically want.
Schedule a free consultation today.