When law enforcement requests your client communications. What they actually get.
Email, phone, Signal, Slack. What law enforcement obtains from each channel under subpoena, search warrant, or pen-trap order. The matrix that decides the answer.
Digital security for lawyers and notaries — client confidentiality, GDPR compliance, secure communications, and data breach prevention.
Email, phone, Signal, Slack. What law enforcement obtains from each channel under subpoena, search warrant, or pen-trap order. The matrix that decides the answer.
Lawyers operate at the intersection of three pressure points no other profession combines: privileged client communications, adversaries trying to acquire those communications, and a duty of competence that now extends to the technology used to handle them. The operational posture for solo practitioners, mid-size firms, and the moment something has gone wrong.
Every search on Lexis, Westlaw, vLex, or Bloomberg Law is logged. The data flows, the AI feature exposure, and what firms are doing about it.
Slack, Teams, and Discord histories are now standard discovery. What is produced, what survives deletion, and the engagement letter language to add.
Bryan Fleming built pcTattletale, a stalkerware platform with 138,000 paying customers and over $600,000 in PayPal revenue. He was fined $5,000. The ratio tells you exactly how seriously the US legal system treats non-consensual surveillance in domestic relationships.
FulcrumSec leaked 3.9 million records and 118 .gov profiles from LexisNexis Legal and Professional after exploiting an unpatched React frontend. The platform every law firm uses just became the database every attacker wants.
Russia ran a phishing campaign that compromised around 300 Signal accounts belonging to ministers, military, diplomats, and journalists. The encryption was never touched. Attackers used Signal’s own Linked Devices feature.
Law firms are among the most targeted organisations for data theft.
Adversaries targeting law firms are not opportunistic.
Hankey v. United States: the Supreme Court heard arguments on April 26, 2026 on whether a warrant targeting a geographic area, not a person, is constitutional. Your phone’s location history is the evidence.