Gh0st RAT Scenario: Law Firm Client Surveillance

Gh0st RAT Scenario: Law Firm Client Surveillance

Blackstone & Associates: Corporate law firm representing Fortune 500 companies, 180 attorneys

Legal Espionage • Gh0st RAT

STAKES

Client confidentiality + Case strategy integrity + Professional ethics obligations + Litigation readiness

HOOK

Attorneys report unauthorized cursor movement, legal files opening during private strategy sessions, and after-hours access to confidential case folders. Opposing counsel begins mirroring arguments that were only discussed in closed client meetings.

PRESSURE

Pre-trial legal strategy review due by 5:00 PM - Potential confidentiality failure under ABA Model Rules and state privacy/breach statutes

FRONT • 180 minutes • Expert

Blackstone & Associates: Corporate law firm representing Fortune 500 companies, 180 attorneys

Legal Espionage • Gh0st RAT

NPCs

• Managing Partner Elizabeth Harper: Leading high-stakes litigation strategy while balancing client trust and operational continuity
• Senior Associate Daniel Chen: First to detect suspicious workstation behavior during closed legal strategy sessions
• Ethics Counsel Maria Santos: Evaluating privilege exposure, reporting obligations, and professional conduct implications
• Special Prosecutor Jennifer Wong: Coordinating criminal investigation and evidence-handling guidance with FBI Cyber Division

SECRETS

• Attorneys opened convincing legal-document lures while finalizing sensitive case materials
• Privileged workspaces were monitored for weeks before detection, including strategy notes and client call summaries
• Opposing counsel behavior indicates confidential themes may already be reflected in litigation posture

Blackstone & Associates operates as Corporate law firm representing Fortune 500 companies, 180 attorneys with 180 legal professionals in United States.

Gh0st RAT Scenario: Law Firm Client Surveillance

Harrington Chambers: UK law chambers handling complex commercial disputes, 150 solicitors

Legal Espionage • Gh0st RAT

STAKES

Client confidentiality + Case strategy integrity + Professional ethics obligations + Litigation readiness

HOOK

Solicitors report unauthorized cursor movement, legal files opening during private strategy sessions, and after-hours access to confidential case folders. Opposing counsel begins mirroring arguments that were only discussed in closed client meetings.

PRESSURE

Pre-trial legal strategy review due by 17:00 - Potential confidentiality failure under SRA Code of Conduct, UK GDPR, and Data Protection Act 2018

FRONT • 180 minutes • Expert

Harrington Chambers: UK law chambers handling complex commercial disputes, 150 solicitors

Legal Espionage • Gh0st RAT

NPCs

• Managing Partner Eleanor Whitmore: Leading high-stakes dispute strategy while balancing client trust and operational continuity
• Senior Associate Tariq Khan: First to detect suspicious workstation behavior during closed legal strategy sessions
• Ethics Counsel Priya Malhotra: Evaluating privilege exposure, reporting obligations, and professional conduct implications
• Detective Inspector (NCA liaison) Detective Inspector James Fletcher: Coordinating criminal investigation and evidence-handling guidance with NCSC and NCA

SECRETS

• Solicitors opened convincing legal-document lures while finalizing sensitive dispute materials
• Privilege-sensitive workspaces were monitored for weeks before detection, including strategy notes and client call summaries
• Opposing counsel behavior indicates confidential themes may already be reflected in litigation posture

Harrington Chambers operates as UK law chambers handling complex commercial disputes, 150 solicitors with 150 legal professionals in United Kingdom.

Planning Resources

Tip📋 Comprehensive Facilitation Guide Available

For detailed session preparation support, including game configuration templates, investigation timelines, response options matrix, and round-by-round facilitation guidance, see:

Gh0st RAT Law Firm Surveillance Planning Document

Planning documents provide 30-minute structured preparation for first-time IMs, or quick-reference support for experienced facilitators.

Note🎬 Interactive Scenario Slides

Ready-to-present RevealJS slides with player-safe mode, session tracking, and IM facilitation notes:

Gh0st RAT Law Firm Surveillance Scenario Slides

Press ‘P’ to toggle player-safe mode • Built-in session state tracking • Dark/light theme support

Scenario Details for IMs

Hook

“It is Thursday morning at Blackstone & Associates, and trial preparation for a $500 million matter is entering final review. During private strategy sessions, multiple legal teams report that documents open without user input, screens flicker between folders, and privileged notes appear in recent-file lists even when nobody touched the keyboard. Overnight logs show repeated remote-control activity and outbound transfers from attorney workstations handling merger and litigation materials.”

“It is Thursday morning at Harrington Chambers, and preparation for a £380 million commercial dispute is entering final review. During private strategy sessions, multiple legal teams report that documents open without user input, screens flicker between folders, and privileged notes appear in recent-file lists even when nobody touched the keyboard. Overnight logs show repeated remote-control activity and outbound transfers from solicitor workstations handling commercial dispute materials.”

Initial Symptoms to Present:

Warning🚨 Initial User Reports

• “Attorney workstations show remote cursor movement during confidential meetings.”
• “Privileged legal files open automatically while teams are discussing case strategy.”
• “Endpoint logs show sustained screen-capture and keylogging behavior on litigation devices.”
• “Outbound encrypted traffic spikes from systems that hold confidential case materials.”

Key Discovery Paths:

Detective Investigation Leads:

Note🔍 Detective Investigation Path

• Forensic timeline links initial access to legal-document lure campaigns sent during active trial preparation.
• Host artifacts indicate operator-driven surveillance focused on litigation folders and collaboration transcripts.
• Cross-matter analysis shows confidential themes from multiple matters were accessed during off-hours sessions.

Protector System Analysis:

Note🛡️ Protector System Analysis

• Compromised endpoints include senior legal staff devices used in confidential strategy meetings.
• Persistence mechanisms survive normal reboot and user sign-out behavior, indicating deliberate long-term access.
• Segmentation gaps between document systems and collaboration tools enabled broader confidentiality exposure.

Tracker Network Investigation:

Note🌐 Tracker Network Investigation

• Command-and-control sessions are timed to blend into normal late-evening legal review activity.
• Exfiltration patterns show selective transfer behavior aligned with high-value filing windows.
• Traffic pivots toward systems tied to ongoing litigation, not broad operational disruption.

Communicator Stakeholder Interviews:

Note🗣️ Communicator Stakeholder Interviews

• Legal teams report rising concern that confidential strategy may already be reflected in adversarial filings.
• Client relationship leaders need clear status messaging on confidentiality impact and response milestones.
• Professional ethics stakeholders request documented decision rationale for notification, preservation, and escalation.

Mid-Scenario Pressure Points:

• Hour 1: A key client asks whether confidential preparation notes were accessed before a major hearing.
• Hour 2: Opposing counsel filing language appears to track internal strategy themes.
• Hour 3: Legal leadership asks for a go/no-go decision on continued strategy sessions using current systems.
• Hour 4: External investigators request immediate evidence-preservation confirmation.

Evolution Triggers:

• If containment is delayed, active surveillance may continue through additional case milestones.
• If legal-hold discipline is inconsistent, evidence integrity becomes vulnerable during escalation.
• If confidentiality impact is under-communicated, client trust erosion accelerates even after technical recovery.

Resolution Pathways:

Technical Success Indicators:

• Live surveillance access is removed from compromised legal endpoints with defensible forensic evidence.
• Monitoring confirms no continued unauthorized access to strategy workspaces.
• Privileged-document workflows are re-established through hardened, validated communication channels.

Business Success Indicators:

• Matter teams maintain litigation readiness while enforcing secure collaboration controls.
• Client trust is stabilized through clear confidentiality impact reporting and concrete remediation milestones.
• Professional oversight concerns are addressed without avoidable process violations.

Learning Success Indicators:

• Team distinguishes targeted legal surveillance from disruptive commodity malware.
• Participants connect incident response sequencing to confidentiality and ethics obligations.
• Group demonstrates coordinated legal, technical, and communications decision-making under deadline pressure.

Common IM Facilitation Challenges:

If Surveillance Scope Is Underestimated:

“Your containment plan is progressing, but strategy sessions are still underway. What evidence threshold proves that surveillance is truly inactive before confidential meetings resume?”

If Privilege Obligations Are Deferred:

“Maria Santos asks whether attorney-client privilege exposure requires immediate escalation. How do you align technical triage with ABA Model Rules and state privacy/breach statutes and state-dependent, typically 30-60 days expectations?”

“Priya Malhotra asks whether legal professional privilege exposure requires immediate escalation. How do you align technical triage with SRA Code of Conduct, UK GDPR, and Data Protection Act 2018 and 72 hours for UK GDPR high-risk breaches expectations?”

If Decision Ownership Is Unclear:

“Elizabeth Harper needs a decision-ready brief before 5:00 PM. Who owns the final recommendation on continued legal operations and client disclosure scope?”

“Eleanor Whitmore needs a decision-ready brief before 17:00. Who owns the final recommendation on continued legal operations and client disclosure scope?”

Success Metrics for Session:

• Team identifies and halts targeted surveillance on legal workstations.
• Confidentiality impact assessment is defensible and evidence-backed.
• Response planning integrates legal ethics, client trust, and technical containment.
• Coordination with external authorities is timely and structured.
• Recovery roadmap addresses both immediate litigation risk and long-term control maturity.

Template Compatibility

This scenario adapts to multiple session formats with appropriate scope and timing:

Quick Demo (35-40 minutes)

Structure: 2 investigation rounds, 1 decision round
Focus: Rapid recognition of legal-surveillance indicators and confidentiality risk framing
Key Actions: Isolate compromised legal endpoints, preserve evidence, assign privilege-impact decision ownership

Lunch & Learn (75-90 minutes)

Structure: 4 investigation rounds, 2 decision rounds
Focus: Privilege impact analysis plus regulator-ready communications
Key Actions: Track surveillance timeline, classify affected matters, align response with professional ethics obligations

Full Game (120-140 minutes)

Structure: 6 investigation rounds, 3 decision rounds
Focus: End-to-end legal-operations crisis management under active litigation pressure
Key Actions: Coordinate legal, security, and client communications; preserve evidence quality; execute phased recovery controls

Advanced Challenge (150-170 minutes)

Structure: 7-8 investigation rounds, 4 decision rounds
Focus: Ambiguous evidence, multi-matter exposure, and high-pressure governance decisions
Key Actions: Defend confidence levels under uncertainty, resolve notification conflicts, and protect long-term client trust

Quick Demo Materials (35-40 min)

Guided Investigation Clues

Clue 1 (Minute 5): “Endpoint forensics confirm unauthorized remote-control sessions on litigation workstations at Blackstone & Associates. The affected team handles a $500 million matter, and activity aligns with closed strategy-session windows.”
Clue 2 (Minute 10): “Cross-system logs show surveillance behavior spanning 5 active matters. Analysts find repeated capture of notes and draft arguments tied to confidential strategy themes.”
Clue 3 (Minute 15): “Special Prosecutor Jennifer Wong requests immediate evidence preservation and requests coordination with FBI Cyber Division while the firm assesses privilege impact.”

Clue 1 (Minute 5): “Endpoint forensics confirm unauthorized remote-control sessions on dispute workstations at Harrington Chambers. The affected team handles a £380 million matter, and activity aligns with closed strategy-session windows.”
Clue 2 (Minute 10): “Cross-system logs show surveillance behavior spanning 5 active matters. Analysts find repeated capture of notes and draft arguments tied to confidential strategy themes.”
Clue 3 (Minute 15): “Detective Inspector (NCA liaison) Detective Inspector James Fletcher requests immediate evidence preservation and requests coordination with NCSC and NCA while chambers assess privilege impact.”

Pre-Defined Response Options

Option A: Emergency Privilege Protection and Evidence Lockdown

• Action: Isolate compromised legal endpoints, enforce secure fallback channels for active matters, and preserve chain-of-custody artifacts for external investigation.
• Pros: Immediate reduction in surveillance exposure and stronger legal defensibility for downstream review.
• Cons: Temporary slowdown of filing workflows and increased burden on legal teams under deadline pressure.
• Type Effectiveness: Super effective against APT-style surveillance campaigns.

Option B: Targeted Remediation While Maintaining Operations

• Action: Keep core filing operations active, remediate confirmed compromised hosts first, and monitor for residual access.
• Pros: Preserves short-term productivity and reduces immediate disruption to active cases.
• Cons: Residual surveillance risk remains if undiscovered footholds persist in adjacent systems.
• Type Effectiveness: Moderately effective against APT surveillance with elevated residual risk.

Option C: Continuity-First Approach with Deferred Deep Investigation

• Action: Prioritize trial execution and defer deep forensic expansion until immediate filing deadlines pass.
• Pros: Minimizes short-term operational disruption to case schedules.
• Cons: Extends dwell time risk and increases chance of broader confidentiality harm.
• Type Effectiveness: Partially effective; operationally useful but weak on surveillance eradication.

Lunch & Learn Materials (75-90 min, 2 rounds)

Round 1: Surveillance Discovery and Privilege Triage (30-35 min)

Investigation Clues:

• Clue 1 (Minute 5): “Senior Associate Daniel Chen reports live cursor control during confidential strategy review.”
  
• Clue 2 (Minute 10): “Forensic scope expands from one matter to 5 matters, indicating broader confidentiality exposure.”
  
• Clue 3 (Minute 15): “Ethics Counsel Maria Santos requests immediate written analysis of potential attorney-client privilege impact and escalation timing.”
  

• Clue 1 (Minute 5): “Senior Associate Tariq Khan reports live cursor control during confidential strategy review.”
  
• Clue 2 (Minute 10): “Forensic scope expands from one matter to 5 matters, indicating broader confidentiality exposure.”
  
• Clue 3 (Minute 15): “Ethics Counsel Priya Malhotra requests immediate written analysis of potential legal professional privilege impact and escalation timing.”
  

Round 2: Oversight Coordination and Client Confidence (30-35 min)

Investigation Clues:

• Clue 4 (Minute 30): “State bar ethics committees request a documented chronology of system access, privilege impact assessment, and client-notification decision logic. They specifically ask how incident response actions preserved legal confidentiality and chain-of-custody evidence.”
  
• Clue 5 (Minute 40): “Managing Partner Elizabeth Harper asks whether strategy sessions should continue before the 5:00 PM legal review checkpoint.”
  

• Clue 4 (Minute 30): “The SRA and ICO request a documented chronology of system access, privilege impact assessment, and client-notification decision logic. They specifically ask how incident response actions preserved legal confidentiality and chain-of-custody evidence.”
  
• Clue 5 (Minute 40): “Managing Partner Eleanor Whitmore asks whether strategy sessions should continue before the 17:00 legal review checkpoint.”
  

Round Transition Narrative

If the team prioritizes strict containment, confidential operations slow but exposure risk declines rapidly. If the team prioritizes continuity, litigation tempo holds but residual surveillance risk remains. In either case, state bar ethics committees expects defensible evidence and a documented rationale for every confidentiality decision.

If the team prioritizes strict containment, confidential operations slow but exposure risk declines rapidly. If the team prioritizes continuity, litigation tempo holds but residual surveillance risk remains. In either case, Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and ICO expects defensible evidence and a documented rationale for every confidentiality decision.

Debrief Focus:
Balancing confidentiality duties with active-case timelines; preserving evidentiary quality under pressure; communicating uncertainty without eroding client trust.

Full Game Materials (120-140 min, 3 rounds)

TipFull Game vs. Lunch & Learn

The Full Game adds open investigation, creative response design, and a third round centered on strategic recovery and reputation management.

Round 1: Active Surveillance and Immediate Containment (35-40 min)

It is Thursday morning at Blackstone & Associates. Managing Partner Elizabeth Harper is reviewing final trial materials while Senior Associate Daniel Chen escalates suspicious workstation behavior from the litigation floor. Ethics Counsel Maria Santos requests immediate preservation of endpoint and messaging evidence because privilege-sensitive workspaces were active during the anomaly window. The matter lead wants to know whether the firm can continue strategy meetings safely before the 5:00 PM internal filing review.

It is Thursday morning at Harrington Chambers. Managing Partner Eleanor Whitmore is reviewing final trial materials while Senior Associate Tariq Khan escalates suspicious workstation behavior from the dispute-resolution floor. Ethics Counsel Priya Malhotra requests immediate preservation of endpoint and messaging evidence because privilege-sensitive workspaces were active during the anomaly window. The matter lead wants to know whether chambers can continue strategy meetings safely before the 17:00 internal filing review.

If team stalls:
“The legal operations lead asks whether confidential case meetings should pause immediately or continue under monitored fallback channels. What is your decision and why?”

Facilitation questions:

• “What minimum evidence proves that active surveillance is contained enough to resume confidential strategy sessions?”
• “How do you preserve litigation velocity while reducing confidentiality exposure across active matters?”
• “Who signs off on the risk decision when technical confidence and legal urgency conflict?”

Round 1→2 Transition

Containment choices determine whether Round 2 starts with lower exposure and slower operations, or higher exposure and faster case throughput. Either path carries tradeoffs the firm must justify externally.

Round 2: Regulatory Scrutiny and Client Communications (35-40 min)

State bar ethics committees request a documented chronology of system access, privilege impact assessment, and client-notification decision logic. They specifically ask how incident response actions preserved legal confidentiality and chain-of-custody evidence.

The SRA and ICO request a documented chronology of system access, privilege impact assessment, and client-notification decision logic. They specifically ask how incident response actions preserved legal confidentiality and chain-of-custody evidence.

If team stalls:
“External reviewers ask how you determined what was accessed, what remains uncertain, and why your notification scope is proportionate. Who presents that narrative?”

Facilitation questions:

• “How do you communicate confidentiality risk to clients without overstating forensic certainty?”
• “What evidence package is sufficient for both legal oversight and criminal investigation needs?”
• “Which decisions must happen now versus after additional forensic confidence is gained?”

Round 2→3 Transition

The incident shifts from acute triage to institutional trust recovery. Technical controls are improving, but client confidence, oversight posture, and matter strategy continuity remain fragile.

Round 3: Reputation, Retention, and Strategic Reform (40-45 min)

Two weeks later, technical containment is stable, but professional and business pressure is increasing. Several clients ask for written privilege-impact determinations, and one board member warns that confidence in the firm is now a strategic risk. Leadership must decide whether to publish a sector-facing security reform plan while active matters remain under heightened scrutiny.

Two weeks later, technical containment is stable, but professional and business pressure is increasing. Several clients ask for written privilege-impact determinations, and one board member warns that confidence in chambers is now a strategic risk. Leadership must decide whether to publish a sector-facing security reform plan while active matters remain under heightened scrutiny.

Pressure events:

• A major client signals intent to move $200 million in legal work unless confidence controls are independently validated.
• Special Prosecutor Jennifer Wong requests expanded cooperation on adversary-attribution evidence.
• Leadership must decide whether to publish a remediation roadmap before all forensic threads are closed.

• A major client signals intent to move £150 million in legal work unless confidence controls are independently validated.
• Detective Inspector (NCA liaison) Detective Inspector James Fletcher requests expanded cooperation on adversary-attribution evidence.
• Leadership must decide whether to publish a remediation roadmap before all forensic threads are closed.

Facilitation questions:

• “What is your retention strategy for clients who now treat confidentiality controls as a competitive differentiator?”
• “How do you demonstrate accountable reform without creating unnecessary litigation exposure?”
• “Which long-term controls most directly reduce the chance of repeat surveillance in high-value matters?”

Debrief Focus

• How legal-sector surveillance differs from broad disruption incidents.
• Why confidentiality incidents require tightly coupled legal, technical, and communications workflows.
• How evidence quality shapes both oversight outcomes and client confidence.
• What governance changes make confidentiality protection sustainable beyond incident response.

Advanced Challenge Materials (150-170 min)

Red Herrings & Misdirection

1. Legitimate document review workflows create heavy after-hours access that resembles attacker activity.
2. Scheduled IT maintenance sessions overlap with suspicious timeline markers.
3. Opposing counsel discovery activity obscures which access events are truly unauthorized.
4. Client portal downloads create noise that can be mistaken for exfiltration.

Removed Resources & Constraints

• No external incident-response retainer support for the first 24 hours.
• Limited forensic staffing across simultaneous active matters.
• Executive communications must be drafted without complete certainty on impacted scope.
• Secure fallback collaboration channels are available but unfamiliar to most legal staff.

Enhanced Pressure

• Court schedule pressure continues while the firm restricts primary systems.
• A board-level governance committee requests a same-day risk recommendation.
• Client relationship partners demand individualized impact narratives for key accounts.
• External oversight requests include chain-of-custody documentation and decision logs.

Ethical Dilemmas

1. Full transparency supports trust but may intensify adversarial litigation pressure.
2. Delayed notification may preserve short-term case control but risks deeper confidence loss.
3. Strict isolation protects confidentiality but can degrade immediate legal service quality.
4. Aggressive continuity preserves case tempo but may tolerate elevated residual exposure.

Advanced Debrief Topics

• Confidentiality as an operational security objective, not only a legal doctrine.
• How legal leadership and security leadership share accountability during surveillance incidents.
• Balancing defensible caution with the commercial realities of active litigation.
• Designing governance that turns incident lessons into durable confidentiality controls.