Legal PR Firm Launches NewLaw Practice Led By Two Industry Veterans | LawSites

When I first read that the legal communications and marketing firm Baretz+Brunelle had launched a NewLaw practice to advise law firms “on ways to thrive in the modern marketplace,” my reaction was, “Well, isn’t that what every legal PR firm should be doing for its clients?”

But in a telephone conversation this morning with the two principals of the new practice, legal industry veterans Brad Blickstein and Beatrice Seravello, I came to the realization that this is something more than a PR consultancy. Rather, it is a soup-to-nuts advisory group that will help law firms at every step, from evaluating opportunities for improvement, to building and implementing new tools and processes, and then helping the firms take that message to the market.

“We are heading to a place where clients and the marketplace are going to demand real changes in the way legal services are delivered,” Blickstein said. “There’s all this talk about legal innovation, but a lot of it is not real, and it’s hard to differentiate.”

“Differentiation is the big point here,” Seravello agreed. “What does our legal service delivery look like and how can we improve it.”

The practice will offer four core services:

  • Intelligence, in the form of research, insights and analysis to help firms better understand the state of the market and trends in legal services delivery.
  • Consulting, in the form of working with firms to identify opportunities for improving and modernizing their processes and services delivery.
  • Development, by helping firms develop and implement new technologies and processes for everything from legal services delivery to back-end operations.
  • Marketing, in the form of helping firms that develop “newlaw” solutions take that messaging to the market through communications and marketing initiatives.

Blickstein and Seravello are both veterans of the legal industry. Blickstein was cofounder in 1991 of Corporate Legal Times, the first independent publication focused exclusively on law departments (which later became Inside Counsel). His Blickstein Group, which he will continue to operate, provides legal-industry research and advisory services, including an annual law department operations survey, the largest survey of Fortune 1000 legal operations, and the new Legal AI Efficacy Report, the first in-depth analysis of the various AI legal technology products.

Seravello has had leadership roles at several AmLaw 100 firms, most recently as deputy executive director of Arnold & Porter following its merger with Kaye Scholer, and formerly as chief strategy officer and chief operating officer at Kaye Scholer. Earlier, she was chief strategy officer at Blank Rome and firmwide practice group director at Dechert, leading its practice management.

The two said that the focus of the practice will be law firms, but that they expect also to work with legal departments and alternative legal services providers.

They expect to work with firms at any stage of their transition — those that are just coming to terms with the need for change, those that have already begun the process but need help tweaking and refining, and those that are farther along and need help promoting what they’ve done.

Blickstein said the new practice group evolved out of a conversation he had nearly a year ago with Baretz+Brunelle cofounder Spencer Baretz about offering communications and marketing services targeted at so-called newlaw initiatives.

“But as we dug in, we realized it would be disingenuous to help firms market their not-very-effective or not-very-innovative ‘innovations,’” Blickstein said. “We realized that we could help them build new delivery-service models, and that’s when we started talking with Bea.”

“It’s no secret that the changes in the industry have created a great deal of anxiety for law firms, making some question their future,” Blickstein said in a press release announcing this new initiative.

My own observation is that “anxiety” is exactly the right word — that many firms are anxiously struggling to understand what clients want, what changes the firm should make, how to “sell” and implement change within the firm, and then how to communicate that outside the firm.

Providing that guidance as an end-to-end consultancy makes eminent sense. Maybe they should actually describe it as hand-holding.

Law School Dean Considers Punishing Students For Offending Donald Trump’s Cabinet Just Because A Few Kids Are Dead

Georgetown Law’s big selling point is its ease in booking high-profile political figures to speak at the school because of its proximity to the halls of power. Allowing students to rub elbows with powerful officials is exactly why a prospective student might turn down an offer from a Michigan or a Berkeley to head to D.C. for the only school in the history of the T14 to… not be there.

But when the administration finds itself holding the bag after at least 38 people including 6 children — and many who work with immigrants at the border believe the officials are understating these figures — end up dead on their watch, students, faculty, and generally decent human beings find themselves less interested in policy puffery. When Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan showed up at Georgetown for the Migration Policy Institute’s annual event to offer platitudes about the the border crackdown he oversees, protestors interrupted the speech naming the children confirmed to have died under his organization’s watch.

This made the Secretary sad, so he left.

Dean William Treanor’s office sent around an email informing Georgetown Law students that he’s considering changing law school policies to allow for the punishment of students, faculty, or staff who participate in protests:

As you may be aware, after the protest that disrupted Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan’s remarks in Hart Auditorium in fall 2019, Dean Treanor re-constituted the Law Center’s Speech and Expression Committee. This year’s committee comprises the students, senior staff and faculty who served on the committee in its two prior years of operation, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.

Dean Treanor has asked the committee to provide by spring 2020 recommendations on the following questions: (1) Should there be any constraints on which outside speakers may be invited to speak on the Law Center campus and which Law Center community members may invite them?; (2) How should the school respond to disruptive protests during an event?; (3) How should the school respond after a disrupted event has concluded, including possible disciplinary or other administrative action against students, staff or faculty disruptors?

Sadly, we must report “emphasis in the original.” While this is merely an invitation to discuss these issues in committee, one wonders why ominously raise these “questions” at all when the correct answers are no clearly: (1) No; (2) If they’re not a security threat, nothing; and, (3) See the answer to question 2. In response to this email, students have launched an online petition and are organizing to have a presence at a listening session convened by Dean Treanor and the law school’s Speech and Expression Committee tomorrow at 11:30 a.m.

The problem is that the proximity to power that Georgetown enjoys is also why the Beltway cancer is metastasizing there. The culture of Washington, bred over decades of townhouse cocktail parties demands that policy be discussed in detached civility with little — and preferably zero — access granted to those impacted.

Secretary Kevin McAleenan was about to dump a spin job on the room about America still being a nation of immigrants, but one where he takes very seriously his obligation to guarantee that people come here the “right way” whatever that means in a world where they routinely deport people with valid visas. And he’d get away with this whitewashing draped in all the credibility of a non-partisan event at an elite law school. It’s not a matter of hearing “both sides” — he’d enjoy an asymmetric power dynamic blowing off any serious question about how his decisions (and those of his administration predecessors) have materially increased the risk of killing children by holding them in judicially recognized unsanitary conditions. People with a willingness to speak on behalf of the targets of government policies are tired of watching the pantomime.

This is why the snowflake conservatives at Georgetown Law want to have a nice safe space for their civil rights violators to talk. They realize the hack they worked out claiming the rhetoric of free speech to authorize one-way information dumps on “docile bulls**t receptacles.” People are starting to complain. “Free speech” isn’t about letting someone take a podium without criticism. If people in the audience don’t like the protest, then they can shout it down and the marketplace of ideas goes on. The fact that these protests are most often met with apathy from anyone not involved is telling.

The better question is how does a school avoid protests like these in the first place. That’s accomplished by building trust with the students and faculty that the school isn’t handing out credibility chits for public relations talking points. It’s built by creating a culture that makes students feel comfortable that the gatekeepers of these opportunities will take responsibility themselves to tenaciously grill speakers on the issues people care about. That’s not a difficult hurdle to clear, but it’s going to take a concerted effort on the part of the administration and the courage to take the lumps when high profile speakers turn the school down because they’d rather not face scrutiny.

Telling the school that you’re looking for input on how to punish people is not a good start.

Pro-immigrant protesters force Kevin McAleenan to scrap speech [CBS]

Earlier: Law School Snowflakes Demand Safe Space Over Jeff Sessions Talk


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.

It’s Not An Interview With The New York Times Editorial Board, But…

2020 is finally here and with that means America is, officially, in a presidential election year.  While it may seem as if the presidential campaign started at some point in the mid-1990s, with the Iowa Caucus being less than three weeks away, we are finally getting to the point where people will actually cast a vote . . . or whatever it is that happens in a caucus.

As I previously announced in this space, I am also running for something this year.  While my campaign is not to become the most powerful person in the world who could wipe out human existence with a simple order to launch America’s entire stockpile of nuclear weapons, a seat on the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) Board of Directors is still important, at least in this little corner of the legal world.  Thankfully, rather than having to travel through freezing temperatures in order to glad-hand octogenarian diner patrons, running for the NALP Board is a much more straightforward, and warmer, process requiring only that one fill out an application that consists of a resume, references, and an Expanded Statement of Interest.  The resume and references I had at the ready — as I have previously mentioned, one should always have an updated version of these documents at the ready, regardless of your employment status — but the statement required answering a couple of questions about what I could bring to NALP and my thoughts on the future of the organization.  In my initial column announcing my run, I promised to bring as much transparency to the election process, and the Board in general if seated, as possible.  To that end, here are my answers — with some minor typos corrected and a bit more in the way of examples:

NALP’s mission, which is grounded in its core values of Expertise, Fairness, Collaboration, Inclusivity, Innovation and Service, is to advance the careers of our members so they, in turn, can better advance the careers of the lawyers and law students they serve.  With that mission and these core values in mind, please describe the skills, strengths and leadership attributes that you bring to NALP and in what way(s) might these attributes benefit member services, education, research, public service, and diversity and inclusion.  Your response may include examples of a significant success or challenge and how you achieved the result(s), your experience leading groups (both in voluntary and professional settings) or examples of projects, initiatives, innovations etc. that you have successfully managed or that demonstrate your leadership, commitment, and management style.

When I first meet with my cohort of recently arrived Vanderbilt 1Ls at the beginning of each academic year, one of the first slides in my GIF filled PowerPoint is a bullet-pointed version of my resume — somewhat ironic as I despise, and almost automatically strike, bullet points in the resumes of Vanderbilt students.  I walk the assembled masses through my academic and professional life up to that point: college, graduate school, law school, Biglaw summer associate, federal clerkship, full-time return to Biglaw, the non-profit sector, contract attorney work, and now the academically adjacent position in Career Services.  As I explain to students who are likely wondering what happened to the funny moving pictures, this recitation is not an attempt at braggadocio, but rather, to show that I have held a decent percentage of the types of jobs in the legal industry.  Thus, my advice to them is worth listening to, if not following, not necessarily because I possess some uniquely magical insight on all employment questions that might arise, but rather, because I have been where they are now and done the things they want to do.  It is that expertise that I can bring to the NALP Board of Directors, specifically when it comes to serving what I think is often an underserved, and yet vital, group in the legal recruiting ecosystem, law students.  Indeed, it is strange there is not a single law student on the NALP Board — while it is true there also are not practicing attorneys on the Board either, a fair percentage of the members hold a J.D.  While there are many law school members of the Board working to advance the interests of students, anyone who has spent any time in Career Services, and is being honest, will tell you that there are multiple masters that must be served in addition to law students, including legal employers and institutional interests.  While I am obviously not a current law student (though I do often find myself thinking of those days fondly), I would come to the Board with a singular purpose of advocating on behalf of those currently in law school.  This means helping to craft a legal recruiting regime that tilts in favor of students, rather than law firms and other legal employers.

In addition to that decade-plus of experience across various legal avenues, there are the last several years I have spent writing about all aspects of legal recruiting, and, at times, the legal world more generally, for Above the Law.  Because one can quickly exhaust the straightforward topics of Career Services (e.g., resumes, cover letters, OCI) relatively quickly, to keep up with a weekly-ish publishing schedule has forced me to think long and hard about various predicaments facing the legal recruiting world in the present day while also those on the horizon that have yet to arrive.  For example, when the NALP Recruiting Guidelines that had guided the industry for several decades were suddenly, and with no forewarning, abandoned right before Christmas in 2018, I was able to think about what that meant for legal recruiting, both in the short (bad) and long (probably worse) term and then have an outlet in which to share those opinions.  Knowing that my takes would be published in a far more sophisticated way than, say, a Twitter thread, forced me to truly think through my opinions.  I hope this thoughtfulness and focus on emerging, big picture questions has continued with the litany of subjects I have covered online and is the same depth of thinking I hope to bring to the NALP Board.

NALP is committed to remaining an organization of value to its members’ needs.  How do you see the NALP membership changing in the next 5‐7 years?  In what ways can NALP improve and innovate that will keep the organization relevant to its members?  How can NALP better communicate the value of membership to its member organizations?

NALP is confronting a crisis that I am not sure is keenly understood by those who need to understand it most.  I have repeatedly overheard, or even directly heard, members from both law schools and law firms question aloud what the purpose is of NALP in 2020.  When the primary professional organization in an industry is having its existence questioned, then that strikes me like a flashing neon sign indicating that a significant event or change must take place.  In my mind, this crisis of confidence is not going to be solved by more members’ only conference calls or publications that cost an arm and a leg to purchase — I should say that I think the quality of many of the materials, both those that are free and those for which members must pay, is quite high, but pursuing the NALP Bookstore can often lead to sticker shock.  Instead, to be relevant in 2020 and the future, NALP needs to be front and center in legal recruiting.  While I might sound like a broken record — does anyone outside of Social Security recipients or hipsters who are into vinyl understand that reference? — the most straightforward way for NALP to gain centrality once again is by revisiting the Recruiting Guidelines.

However, the changes cannot stop there.  Over the next half-decade or more, I am betting NALP will see a surge in attorney membership.  Not from attorneys who are actively practicing law, but the recent trend of law school CSOs and law firm recruiting staffs being increasingly populated by J.D. holders will only accelerate.  This prediction rests on a few premises that seem to be on solid footing: the supply of law school graduates will continue to outstrip the number of attorney jobs in the U.S., law students and practicing attorneys at law firms respond well to interacting with fellow attorneys, and the ongoing push for increased credentialing in every facet of American professional life is not going to abate.  Whether or not I think these trends are all positive, and I have some doubts, I am far more certain they will actually happen.  So how will this impact NALP?  My guess is that there will be a growing demand for data analytics.  While lawyers are not necessarily statisticians, there will likely be a desire for more concrete metrics by which to understand both macro and micro legal hiring trends.  I think that NALP Executive Director Jim Leipold currently does a great job with presenting this sort of information, but the demand for more in-depth and thorough metrics will only increase.  For example, NALP data shows that just over half of all 2L OCI callbacks lead to offers.  What if we break this down by region?  How about if we track offer rates not just from callbacks but from initial interviews?  With 1L recruiting exploding in certain regions, and in those areas starting to replace 2L recruiting, what do those offer rates look like and how does it differ from the Fall 2L cycle?  It is through these sorts of changes that NALP can prove its membership dues are worth the investment, especially in a time of ever-increasing budget cuts at public institutions of higher education, including law schools.  If NALP cannot prove its worth to its membership, then I fear it might quickly morph into the American Bar Association.  Outside of deeming judicial nominees unqualified and seeing them get confirmed regardless when was the last time you read something about the ABA?  How many attorneys do you know who actually pay their ABA dues?

I am excited about the prospect of guiding the direction NALP during a turbulent time because I think the organization has great promise and can serve a very important need in this small sliver of the legal landscape.


Nicholas Alexiou is the Director of LL.M. and Alumni Advising as well as the Associate Director of Career Services at Vanderbilt University Law School. He will, hopefully, respond to your emails at abovethelawcso@gmail.com.

So Maybe The SEC Does Need Whistleblowers’ Help?

Lawyers On Donald Trump’s Impeachment Trial: We’re Just Here To Be Pedantic

If you’re like most Americans, you’re probably not watching the impeachment trial going on in the United States Senate. Hell, most of the Republican Senators have stopped watching it. I encourage anyone on jury duty to try to just leave the trial whenever they feel like it. This is all happening with the blessing of John Roberts who proved himself the consummate appellate judge by displaying the trial management skills of a Teddy Ruxpin running on 20-year-old batteries. But at least he wants everyone to be nice!

While the Senate hears a rundown of stuff we all learned from the original impeachment hearings before issuing a party-line acquittal, it might seem as though there’s not much to see in the impeachment coverage. But for attorneys there’s a lot on the line, specifically the opportunity to be insufferable pedants about the media’s insistence on screwing up a 150-year old title.

From MSNBC, former Senator Claire McCaskill:

The most stunning thing for me… a lawyer does not stand in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and lie.

She’s not alone. Variations on this have come up a lot over the last few days and it provides all of us with law degrees that precious opportunity to miss the substantive point entirely and proclaim to the world how we are technically correct which, of course, is the best kind of correct.

Well actually… John Roberts isn’t “the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” he’s “the Chief Justice of the United States.” The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court title was discontinued in legislation dating back to Salmon P. Chase’s term as Chief in the 1860s.

There. Feels better to get that off our chests, doesn’t it lawyers? Now we can go back to watching bits of the trial between commercials.

McCaskill: Trump’s lawyer just stood in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and lied [MSNBC]
Trump’s Defenders Could at Least Pretend to Care About the Charges Against Him [Esquire]


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.

Zimbabwe takes steps to secure maize – The Zimbabwean

The announcement comes after the government of Zimbabwe made the decision in December 2019 to allow millers and other groups to use free funds to import maize.

“Since then, up to now, I am glad we have put mechanisms to have maize into the country,” Tafadzwa Musarara, chair of GMAZ, said on Jan. 21. “The country’s current demand for commercial (maize) use is 80,000 tonnes, and we have signed up close to 100,000 tonnes with the immediate 50,000 starting to come early next week.”

According to NewZimbabwe.com, the GMAZ has arranged logistics to accommodate the arrival of the grain into Zimbabwe.

“We have of course our own limitations in terms of logistics, but we are making contingent plans … as the grain millers association, we have aggregated our requirements,” Musarara said. “The subsidy started on a rocky note, but I am glad to advise that everything has been resolved.”

Earlier this year, Bloomberg reported that Zimbabwe planned to import maize to circumvent crop loss in the previous year and expected continued drought for 2020. Zimbabwe is currently in the midst of back-to-back droughts, which is causing issues in producing maize.

(Part Of) Argentina Will Not Be Paying Its Bills (For Now Or Possibly Ever)

Book Review: Make LinkedIn Work For You In 2020

What a long strange trip it’s been since the book I co-authored with Carolyn Elefant, Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, was published in 2010. Back then, trying to convince lawyers to use social media for any reason was a tough sell. Very few lawyers used social media and most wanted nothing to do with it.

How times have changed! These days, according to the results of the latest American Bar Association Legal Technology Survey Report, the vast majority of lawyers and law firms use social media. As shared in the survey results, 80% of lawyers report that their firms maintain a presence on social media, and 80% also personally maintain a social media presence for professional purposes.

Not surprisingly, the results showed that LinkedIn is a popular social media site with lawyers; after all, it’s a “professional” social network. According to the report, the majority of lawyers — 57% — indicated that their law firms maintained a LinkedIn presence, and 73% reported that they personally maintained a LinkedIn profile for professional purposes. 31% even shared that they used LinkedIn for reasons unrelated to professional goals.

Usage varied depending on firm size. Larger firms were most likely to have a presence on LinkedIn, with 82% of firms of 100 or more attorneys having a presence in LinkedIn. Next up were 47% of solos, 45% of midsize firms with 10 to 49 lawyers, and 45% of smaller firms with two to nine lawyers.

When it comes to maintaining personal LinkedIn pages for professional purposes, large-firm lawyers led the way, with 87% of lawyers from firms with 500 or more lawyers using LinkedIn, 88% of lawyers from firms with 100 to 499 lawyers, 82% of lawyers from firms with 50 to 99 lawyers, and 79% of lawyers from firms with 10 to 49 lawyers.

So it’s clear that lawyers and their firms are using LinkedIn. Are you one of them? If so, are you using it as effectively as you could be? Probably not. That’s where the recently published book, Make LinkedIn Work for You: A Practical Handbook for Lawyers and Other Legal Professionals, comes in.

In this book, co-authored by Dennis Kennedy and Allison Shields, you’ll learn everything you need to know about using LinkedIn as a legal professional. There’s something for everyone in this book, regardless of whether you’ve been on Linkedin for years or whether it’s a new endeavor.

Trust me on this. As someone whose been on LinkedIn for more than a decade now and who has over 221,000 followers, I like to think I’ve got a pretty good handle on using LinkedIn. Even so, I learned about quite a few new features that I had been previously unaware of.

At  the outset, the authors offer the following very important advice: if you don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish on Linkedin, you’ll have no idea whether the time you spend on LinkedIn is worth it. That’s why, as they explain, it’s so important to determine your goals in order to get the most out of LinkedIn:

“What are you hiring LinkedIn to do?”…For example, if you are “hiring” LinkedIn to help you find a job, you will use it differently than if you are hiring LinkedIn to help you fill an open position. If you want to hire LinkedIn to find new local clients for your law practice, you will do something different than if you want to hire it to help you find speaking opportunities. Our sense is that LinkedIn will work best for most lawyers and other legal professionals if they hire it to help them create, manage, and care for their network of referrers and potential referrers of business.

The book is divided into six sections. The first section covers the basics and helps you understand how to create (or re-create) an effective profile. It also offers an overview of the platform (both the online and mobile versions), the different account settings, and the benefits of both regular and premium accounts.

Sections 2 through 4 offer a deeper dive into the essentials of LinkedIn profiles, the ins and outs of connecting with others on LinkedIn, and how to effectively participate on LinkedIn in order to achieve your stated goals. Section 5 delves into strategical considerations in greater detail, and Section 6 covers a host of different topics including how to: 1) conduct job searches, 2) used LinkedIn business tools, 3) navigate legal ethics issues, and 4) locate relevant resources.

One great tip that comes in really handy at professional networking events is how to enable and use LinkedIn’s “Find Nearby” feature. I recently used this feature at a conference I attended over the summer and it made it super easy to connect with other conference attendees. In Chapter 13 the authors explain how it works:

If you are at a conference or meeting where people are willing to try the feature, you can ask everyone with the app to turn it on. Everyone will see who else on LinkedIn with feature turned on is present. It then is a simple matter of clicking on people and immediately connecting with them.

Speaking of connecting with others, you can find me on Linkedin here. Then, buy the book, learns the ins and outs of LinkedIn, and put some of your newfound knowledge to work!


Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Director of Business and Community Relations at MyCase, web-based law practice management software. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.

When Trademarks Attack: How To Detect And Disarm Doppelgänger Domains

Cybercriminals have a decided advantage when it comes to tricking the public. The human tendency to gloss over small, yet important, details like a misplaced period or an inverted set of adjacent letters can yield immeasurable value to these so-called typosquatters. Whether prompting speed-readers to head over to an unsafe website, or directing corporate insiders via email to transfer funds, doppelgänger domains continue to vex lawyers and security experts alike.

Although the increased reliance on web-searching (where a search term is run through a search engine) in lieu of typing in a specific web domain into an address bar has resulted in a diminished need for defensive domain name acquisition as far as web presence and accessibility, typosquatting (also called URL jacking), remains a vulnerability for phishing attacks against companies, according to Lesley McCall Grossberg, Counsel at BakerHostetler, who focuses her practice on IP litigation.

Grossberg believes that phishing attacks, by which an email is sent to company employees directing them to take action -– typically, wiring funds or providing credentials to accounts, predominantly impacts financial services firms and educational institutions most, as unsuspecting email recipients may be more likely to hand over personal or sensitive information if they believe it is being requested of them from their bank or university.

To best understand the impact of these exploits, it’s critical to understand the actors’ motivations. Typosquatting as an exploit is typically designed to compel any of the following objectives:

  • Sale of the domain back to the brand owner at a premium price
  • Creation of ad revenue from the site where traffic lands
  • Redirection of business to a competitor’s website
  • Commissions earned by redirecting typo-traffic back to the brand itself through an affiliate link
  • Passwords intercepts when visitors visit fake websites
  • Malware or adware revenue for illicit installs on visitors’ devices
  • Harvesting of e-mail messages mistakenly sent to the typo domain for valuable information
  • Dissemination of disinformation

Researchers at Godai Group who studied this issue profiled Fortune 500 companies and found that 30 percent were vulnerable to doppelgänger domain activity, detailing in their investigation that specialty retailers were the most susceptible to these exploits, followed closely by commercial banks and telecommunications companies.

The Legal Landscape

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, enacted in 1999, first established a cause of action in the U.S. for intentionally registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name. While the GDPR-induced recent policy changes of redacting private information from the ‘WhoIs’ domain registry has made identifying the registrant of a domain more difficult, an action for transfer of the doppelgänger domain name can be brought under the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Even if the registered domain name does not itself resolve to an active website, “using the disputed domain name as an email address to pass the registrant off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use, as required by under UDRP,” Grossberg said.

UDRP allows trademark holders to file a case at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for international violations. The complainant has to show that the registered domain name is identical or ‘confusingly similar’ to their trademark, that the registrant has no legitimate interest in the domain name, and that the domain name is being used in bad faith.

Organizations like the Commission Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA), a nonprofit organization formed in 2007 to combat online infringement of brands and trademarks online across all top-level domains, represent the interests of companies in advocating for protections against these abuses.

Getting Ahead Of The Twinning Problem

Security and legal experts alike recommend several steps for mitigating doppelgänger danger. Be proactive and beat miscreants to the punch by purchasing and registering every conceivable doppelgänger domain before they do. Another approach that security experts recommend is configuring Domain Name System (DNS) servers to not resolve any doppelgänger domains to protect internal-only e-mail from being accidentally sent to a doppelgänger.

But just as important as the defensive measures, identifying whether bad actors are already using doppelgänger domains against your company interests is an important element of determining the right way to redress any future harms. Once identified, IP specialists and in-house attorneys are becoming adept at working aggressively to take down copycat domains filing under UDRP.

Gaining an understanding of whether attackers are abusing a company’s doppelgänger can be accomplished in a variety of ways. First, a company might learn first-hand of the use via its employees, customers, or a security company who investigates such security vulnerabilities in connection with a cybersecurity assessment. Second, there are companies that provide reporting around the existence of doppelgängers, such as KnowBe4.

For the protection of foreign domains, the Madrid System through WIPO, is an important element, allowing for a convenient and cost-effective solution for registering and managing trademark protection in up to 122 countries, with a single application and filing fee. It’s important to have that foreign trademark registration in place when trying to take down a domain associated with foreign domains.

Grossberg recommends that once a malicious use of a domain doppelgänger is identified in the U.S., a complaint should be made to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). Another approach she finds effective is to follow up that complaint with a letter to the phisher, when possible, letting them know that a complaint has been submitted. The registration of international trademark rights has the added legal advantage of demonstrating additional evidentiary credibility when working through disputes at the IC3 level.

Finally, in yet another instance where the adage “see something, say something” pays valuable dividends, Grossberg believes, and cybersecurity firms like Nisos concur, that another critical component to solve this complex and vexing issue is to educate company insiders on identifying phishing attacks so that suspicious emails with doppelgänger attributes are immediately identified and forwarded to internal security teams for review, remediation, and referral to the legal department.


Jennifer DeTrani is General Counsel and EVP of Nisos, a technology-enabled cybersecurity firm.  She co-founded a secure messaging platform, Wickr, where she served as General Counsel for five years.  You can connect with Jennifer on Wickr (dtrain), LinkedIn or by email at dtrain@nisos.com.

Samantha Bee Hilariously Slams Impeachment Legal Team

Samantha Bee (Photo by Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for GLAAD)

The impeachment trial — if we’re calling it that — of Donald Trump continues its depressing move forward. As all of us who know there will never be 67 votes to remove the president from office are aware, this proceeding is more about making the case of Trump’s corruption for history. But we’re going through it, as we must, in the hope that a handful of suburban housewives in Pennsylvania will be convinced not to vote for Trump.

Anyway, in an if-you-don’t-laugh-you’ll-cry segment on Full Frontal with Samantha Bee the host focuses her laser wit on the impeachment legal defense team the president has assembled. The, ahem, legal acumen of Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz and Rep. Jim Jordan has long been a source of merriment at Above the Law, Bee takes it to another level

Bee describes the triumvirate of  Starr,  Dershowitz and Jordan as “a virtual dream team of rape culture” and then she really lets them have it. I won’t spoil the jokes, but her takedown is on point.

Watch the clip below.