In a Data-Obsessed World, Attorneys Welcome Privacy Law Specialization
California's State Bar will offer the specialization in a state that revolutionized privacy law with the CCPA
News that the State Bar of California will offer a privacy law specialization has been welcomed by practitioners in the space. They say that as the scale and complexity of data use grows, so does the need for lawyers who understand the patchwork of regulations governing privacy and the latest technological advancements.
The State Bar voted to approve the specialization during its May 22-23 meeting. It's the first new specialization to be established since 2008 and will join 11 others, including Family Law and Taxation Law, once launched.
According to the State Bar, the specialization 'recognizes the growth and importance of privacy law in light of increasing legal challenges in data privacy, cybersecurity and emerging technologies.'
Attorneys who seek specialization will need to demonstrate knowledge of areas including data security, data sharing and technologies. Eventually, attorneys will need to pass an examination to fulfill the specialization requirements.
California is not the first state to offer a specialization, explained Sharon R. Klein, co-chair of Blank Rome LLP's Privacy, Security & Data Protection practice. In the U.S., that honor belongs to North Carolina, which offers a certification based on the International Association of Privacy Professionals Certified Information Privacy Profession/United States certification (and which Klein has held for decades).
Klein said that privacy law was 'definitely' an area requiring specialist knowledge, given 'privacy is an area filled with complex and often conflicting regulations and one which is constantly evolving.' Regarding demand for the specialization, she noted that there were '1,200 active members of the California Lawyers Association's privacy section.'
Attorney Don R. Dennis Jr., whose practice includes copyright and trademark infringement, internet law, defamation, trade secret misappropriation, data security breaches and privacy law, welcomed the news. He said that he would consider taking the specialization and that it would allow attorneys practicing privacy law to stand out from the pack.
'The fact that there are so many tenets to privacy law, whether we're talking about education or finance or health, being that it touches so many different points, that specialization just allows you to really hone in, and it will really set you apart from other legal practitioners who may have read an article here or there, or maybe even experienced a data breach, but have not dealt in this area of law on a daily or weekly basis,' he said.
Daniel Goldberg, who chairs Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC's privacy practice, also welcomed the move. He said that while the precise details of the specialization were not yet clear, he would 'definitely' consider taking it.
'Absolutely, it's an area that has been exploding with growth. And California is one of the leading states with privacy regulation and has been for a number of years now. And so it is, I think, particularly important to have some type of specialization designating leaders in this field,' Goldberg said.
Like Dennis, Goldberg said that attorneys who wanted to effectively solve clients' data privacy issues needed to stay on top of the latest legal and technological developments.
'The law is very complex. But on top of the law being complex, the specialization really requires a level of technical expertise. The law talks all about measures that companies need to take with respect to collection, use, disclosure of data and opting out. But if you don't understand how the technology works or how the ecosystem works, then it's an area that would be very, very difficult for you,' he said.
He added, 'One thing about privacy law is that you also have to be an expert on what's going on in the news, the latest changes and whether it has to do with ad-tech platforms or AI. If you're not up with the latest changes, you're going to fall behind very quickly.'
Both attorneys said that the specialization recognized that data privacy has become an increasingly pressing issue in recent years.
Dennis said that growing consumer reliance on data-rich consumer services, as well as the transition to online platforms in industries like education and health, and the resulting risk of data being misused or leaked had boosted the number of companies and consumers seeking legal advice on their legal remedies and responsibilities.
This would likely be magnified by the growth of artificial intelligence services, he said.
He said that privacy law was a complicated area of the law, involving a patchwork of state and international law. Much of his time was spent helping clients navigate through these laws.
'There's no national data breach law. Each state has its own law and notification process,' he said.
Klein explained that data privacy, particularly the privacy policies and infrastructure a company had in place, had also become a key consideration during dealmaking.
'No commercial deal gets done today without an analysis of the data the target is/has collected and whether they have protected the data and avoided data breaches. This is true for ordinary deals as well as technology deals,' she said.
She agreed that AI would likely exacerbate this trend, stating, 'The amount of regulation and legislation globally over the past 35 years of my practice is stunning and will increase exponentially with AI. Lawyers are needed to align expectations of the parties globally on privacy, security, and AI rights and data transfers.'
Goldberg said that it was fitting that California attorneys would soon have the option to earn a privacy specialization, given that the state has played a pioneering role in privacy regulation.
This included the passing of the first comprehensive privacy law (the California Consumer Privacy Act or CCPA) in 2018, which he said catalyzed the creation of similar laws across other states and established California as the national leader in privacy legislation.
He said the state had also been among the most active in enforcement, with both the Attorney General's office and the California Privacy Protection Agency pursuing multiple enforcement actions of late, with more expected to follow.
Because data privacy stretches across such a broad cross section of industries, Goldberg said that it was becoming an increasingly lucrative area for law firms.
'It's incredibly lucrative just because it's such a broad area. It really is a subject matter expertise that goes in so many different subcategories of practices, and so almost every firm now has to have a privacy expert,' he said.
Klein predicted that the 'privacy, security and AI areas for lawyers will continue to be robust for decades to come as companies need legal advice relating to the vast amounts of data to operate their businesses,' including trade secret and personal data.
'Needless to say – law firms see this as a lucrative area and are and will continue to invest in privacy, security and AI specialists,' she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
12 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
In a Data-Obsessed World, Attorneys Welcome Privacy Law Specialization
California's State Bar will offer the specialization in a state that revolutionized privacy law with the CCPA News that the State Bar of California will offer a privacy law specialization has been welcomed by practitioners in the space. They say that as the scale and complexity of data use grows, so does the need for lawyers who understand the patchwork of regulations governing privacy and the latest technological advancements. The State Bar voted to approve the specialization during its May 22-23 meeting. It's the first new specialization to be established since 2008 and will join 11 others, including Family Law and Taxation Law, once launched. According to the State Bar, the specialization 'recognizes the growth and importance of privacy law in light of increasing legal challenges in data privacy, cybersecurity and emerging technologies.' Attorneys who seek specialization will need to demonstrate knowledge of areas including data security, data sharing and technologies. Eventually, attorneys will need to pass an examination to fulfill the specialization requirements. California is not the first state to offer a specialization, explained Sharon R. Klein, co-chair of Blank Rome LLP's Privacy, Security & Data Protection practice. In the U.S., that honor belongs to North Carolina, which offers a certification based on the International Association of Privacy Professionals Certified Information Privacy Profession/United States certification (and which Klein has held for decades). Klein said that privacy law was 'definitely' an area requiring specialist knowledge, given 'privacy is an area filled with complex and often conflicting regulations and one which is constantly evolving.' Regarding demand for the specialization, she noted that there were '1,200 active members of the California Lawyers Association's privacy section.' Attorney Don R. Dennis Jr., whose practice includes copyright and trademark infringement, internet law, defamation, trade secret misappropriation, data security breaches and privacy law, welcomed the news. He said that he would consider taking the specialization and that it would allow attorneys practicing privacy law to stand out from the pack. 'The fact that there are so many tenets to privacy law, whether we're talking about education or finance or health, being that it touches so many different points, that specialization just allows you to really hone in, and it will really set you apart from other legal practitioners who may have read an article here or there, or maybe even experienced a data breach, but have not dealt in this area of law on a daily or weekly basis,' he said. Daniel Goldberg, who chairs Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC's privacy practice, also welcomed the move. He said that while the precise details of the specialization were not yet clear, he would 'definitely' consider taking it. 'Absolutely, it's an area that has been exploding with growth. And California is one of the leading states with privacy regulation and has been for a number of years now. And so it is, I think, particularly important to have some type of specialization designating leaders in this field,' Goldberg said. Like Dennis, Goldberg said that attorneys who wanted to effectively solve clients' data privacy issues needed to stay on top of the latest legal and technological developments. 'The law is very complex. But on top of the law being complex, the specialization really requires a level of technical expertise. The law talks all about measures that companies need to take with respect to collection, use, disclosure of data and opting out. But if you don't understand how the technology works or how the ecosystem works, then it's an area that would be very, very difficult for you,' he said. He added, 'One thing about privacy law is that you also have to be an expert on what's going on in the news, the latest changes and whether it has to do with ad-tech platforms or AI. If you're not up with the latest changes, you're going to fall behind very quickly.' Both attorneys said that the specialization recognized that data privacy has become an increasingly pressing issue in recent years. Dennis said that growing consumer reliance on data-rich consumer services, as well as the transition to online platforms in industries like education and health, and the resulting risk of data being misused or leaked had boosted the number of companies and consumers seeking legal advice on their legal remedies and responsibilities. This would likely be magnified by the growth of artificial intelligence services, he said. He said that privacy law was a complicated area of the law, involving a patchwork of state and international law. Much of his time was spent helping clients navigate through these laws. 'There's no national data breach law. Each state has its own law and notification process,' he said. Klein explained that data privacy, particularly the privacy policies and infrastructure a company had in place, had also become a key consideration during dealmaking. 'No commercial deal gets done today without an analysis of the data the target is/has collected and whether they have protected the data and avoided data breaches. This is true for ordinary deals as well as technology deals,' she said. She agreed that AI would likely exacerbate this trend, stating, 'The amount of regulation and legislation globally over the past 35 years of my practice is stunning and will increase exponentially with AI. Lawyers are needed to align expectations of the parties globally on privacy, security, and AI rights and data transfers.' Goldberg said that it was fitting that California attorneys would soon have the option to earn a privacy specialization, given that the state has played a pioneering role in privacy regulation. This included the passing of the first comprehensive privacy law (the California Consumer Privacy Act or CCPA) in 2018, which he said catalyzed the creation of similar laws across other states and established California as the national leader in privacy legislation. He said the state had also been among the most active in enforcement, with both the Attorney General's office and the California Privacy Protection Agency pursuing multiple enforcement actions of late, with more expected to follow. Because data privacy stretches across such a broad cross section of industries, Goldberg said that it was becoming an increasingly lucrative area for law firms. 'It's incredibly lucrative just because it's such a broad area. It really is a subject matter expertise that goes in so many different subcategories of practices, and so almost every firm now has to have a privacy expert,' he said. Klein predicted that the 'privacy, security and AI areas for lawyers will continue to be robust for decades to come as companies need legal advice relating to the vast amounts of data to operate their businesses,' including trade secret and personal data. 'Needless to say – law firms see this as a lucrative area and are and will continue to invest in privacy, security and AI specialists,' she added.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Yahoo
Wisconsin State Bar leadership betrays the rule of law
Why has the Wisconsin State Bar take a pass on condemning unconstitutional intimidation of lawyers? And why can't anyone find out the details of how that decision was made? |Getty Images Creative The State Bar of Wisconsin was created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the trade association that all Wisconsin lawyers must join to obtain their law licenses. Its vision statement declares its cardinal purpose: 'Our members are the respected guardians of the dignity and integrity of the rule of law within a fair and accessible justice system.' Yet recently, State Bar leaders deliberately violated their own vision statement by refusing in any way to push back against President Donald Trump's blatantly illegal executive orders attacking lawyers, without whom the rule of law cannot exist 'within a fair and accessible justice system.' Why they shirked their express mission remains a mystery because State Bar leaders voted in secrecy on the issue and refused to explain themselves to the 25,000 State Bar members they purportedly serve. Instead, they have stonewalled membership with a bogus cone of silence over their deliberations. Here is the context: Earlier this Spring, President Donald Trump issued punitive executive orders targeting 14 prominent law firms because he didn't like their lawyers, clients, cases, or speech. He acted to cripple their ability to provide legal services to their clients. Trump then offered these firms an extortionate 'deal' he thought they couldn't refuse: agree to provide millions of dollars in pro bono legal work to further Trump's political agenda, such as free work for the coal industry, or else lose security clearances, access to federal buildings and even government contracts held by their clients. Several of the firms capitulated, offering roughly $1 billion in legal services to Trump that otherwise would have funded true 'pro bono' work for the underserved. Several others, including Perkins Coie, a distinguished national firm with Wisconsin members, refused. They fought back in court, and won. Their wins are unsurprising. The U.S. Constitution undeniably bars our government from wielding its power to target lawyers based on their representation of clients, their employment decisions, or their advocating positions the administration doesn't like. Federal courts have been unanimous and unsparing in condemning Trump's orders. One judge characterized such an order as a 'personal vendetta' by Trump that 'the framers of our Constitution would see…as a shocking abuse of power.' Retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig commented that executive orders targeting law firms are 'the most sinister and corrupt' of the 'ocean of unconstitutional orders' coming out of the White House. He correctly emphasized that the legality of the executive orders is beside the point for Trump, who knows that no court will uphold them. The purpose, rather, is to intimidate lawyers. Wisconsin lawyers are officers of the court, sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. We are thus duty-bound to guard the Constitution against existential hazards like Trump's illegitimate orders. The rule of law requires no less. Because the State Bar, through its governing board, is uniquely positioned to speak on issues of universal concern to all lawyers, we and others have repeatedly urged the Bar to honor its vision statement and publicly condemn Trump's orders. Various versions of a statement supporting the rule of law have been offered for the board of governors' consideration and adoption, statements that no reasonable lawyer could find objectionable while remaining true to the lawyer's oath. We are not asking a lot. Already the State Bar—once a national leader in advancing the rule of law—is woefully behind many other respected lawyer organizations. On March 26, 2025, for example, the American Bar Association was joined by more than a hundred other lawyer organizations in a public statement specifically rejecting 'the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients…' The ABA statement continued: 'There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession… to speak out against intimidation.' On May 22, we were informed by a single member of the Wisconsin State Bar board of governors that the board met in closed session May 14, and 'following extensive discussion protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Board voted to make no statement concerning recent actions taken by the Executive Branch of the federal government.' That's all we know because board members also voted to remain silent on what occurred during the closed meeting, for reasons they will also not disclose. Newly-elected members of the board of governors taking office July 1 will be barred from learning more about the May 14 closed meeting until they first take a vow of silence on what they may learn even though they are instructed by their position description to '[c]ommunicate regularly with constituents,' and to '[b]e well versed in the State Bar's public policy positions and be prepared to explain them to…members of the bar.' We have since asked 12 representatives on the board several questions about what happened in secret and why. Only three replied, but they provided little information. We still don't know: (1) why the question was taken up in closed session, (2) why State Bar leaders needed legal counsel to advise whether the Bar should issue a statement supporting the rule of law, (3) what was discussed, (4) why no statement was issued, and (5) what was the final vote. We asked State Bar leadership and staff to forward our questions to all 52 members of the board but, despite an agreement to do so, the questions were not sent. We still have no answers. More than 400 years ago Shakespeare highlighted the tyrant's tactic for thwarting the rule of law: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.' Federal District Judge Beryl Howell invoked Shakespeare's warning in her scathing takedown of the executive order targeting Perkins Coie, further observing that when American history is written, 'those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded.' The success of Trump's intimidation campaign depends largely on whether lawyers forcefully resist his illegal bullying at every opportunity. Thus, the State Bar's cowering non-response bodes ill for the rule of law in Wisconsin. As the American Bar Association stated: 'If the lawyers do not speak…who will protect the bedrock of justice?' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Yahoo
Michigan transmission line project sparks fears of land seizures via eminent domain
ITC's Oneida Substation in Eaton County's Oneida Township, the starting point for a proposed transmission line. June 7, 2025 | Photo by Jon King Two electric transmission line projects pending state approval have some Michigan residents worried that their properties could be seized via eminent domain, but they might be getting some help from the Republican-controlled Michigan House of Representatives in fighting back. The projects proposed by ITC Holding Corp., doing business as the Michigan Electric Transmission Company, plan to build two approximately 50 mile spans of high-voltage electric transmission lines, one from the Indiana border starting in Branch County to a substation in Calhoun County, and the other stretching from Eaton County to Gratiot County. The projects were proposed in 2022 and are slated to cost nearly $850 million. They have been hailed by supporters as some of the first transmission line projects approved by MISO, a midwestern power grid operator, which could help bolster Michigan's electric grid. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX But the situation has some residents grappling with the possibility of an electricity rate increase that could affect all Michiganders, as well as concerns that their land might be seized in the process. One of those residents is Marcia Klein, who began organizing members in her community to fight against the project with the hope of getting more information on the company and possibly having the lines placed underground so that whole swaths of land remain in the hands of property owners. In an interview with Michigan Advance, Klein said she was concerned that ITC did not include a cost-benefit analysis in its applications and that the commission also noted that issue as one of their concerns. Klein also said that the company appears to be dismissive of calls to use existing utility or state land easements. She said she questioned the company's preferred approach to build on what is known as virgin land, untouched by other industries, and why the company hasn't sought to route its lines through state land, which would require permitting and approval from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Klein further questioned the logic of new siting laws for large scale energy projects that took local control away from cities and townships and placed those decisions in the hands of the Michigan Public Service Commission. 'I'm not against progress, or electricity, the grids, the expansion,' Klein said. 'It's just the wrong place.' She told the Advance that she felt that there weren't enough chances for public input and that any influence over a decision is well out of their reach. Klein also said that unlike the Gotion battery plant issue last year, too few local residents or Michigan citizens statewide knew about their struggle to circumvent the project's approval. In the case of the Gotion plant, the project has been put on hold, due in part to the large movement and political awareness that was organized against it. 'They're just ramrodding this through,' Klein said of the transmission line project. 'There weren't enough public hearings, I didn't get my notice [of those hearings] other than a bulk mail letter last August. … It wasn't in the newspapers or on the air.' Still, Klein was undeterred, and began organizing to make sure residents were informed about the issue, even as she was due for a hip surgery last year. Some of those residents have legal representation in case they have to go to court, many of them with bicentennial farm land that is in trust and at risk of potentially being seized as a part of the project. Klein said her land is also in trust, but she doesn't have the means to afford legal representation at this time. Applications and ongoing proceedings were consolidated by the Michigan Public Service Commission last year. The commission most recently collected feedback on the projects at its May 15 meeting. Commissioners will meet next in mid June but it is unclear if the ITC projects will be up for discussion. The matter was also before an administrative law judge and oral arguments were held in March. However, the administrative law judge in the case will not be issuing a recommendation, known as a proposal for decision. Those decisions typically involve an administrative law judge analyzing the evidentiary record and issuing findings for the commission to consider. A spokesperson for the commission told Michigan Advance that, instead, the commission, which is currently reviewing the matter, will read the entire case record and base its ultimate decision on the overall evidentiary record. A decision to move the projects forward is expected to be reached this summer. Commission approval is not the final battleground for residents opposed to the project, but state law makes it hard for residents to challenge those determinations or any eminent domain decisions in court. Public Service Commission determinations are binding on state courts when deciding whether a property acquisition for a utility – much like electric transmission lines – is a public necessity, and courts typically defer to the commission's determination. The state's eminent domain power also authorizes property condemnation as a pathway for a utility to acquire the rights to private land. Klein told the Advance that it was her understanding that ITC would be seeking to carve out easements along the routes if the applications are approved. She said the company has not proposed to use existing utility company, state land or railroad easements, which she called 'a disgrace.' Among those opposed to the Eaton to Gratiot line project is Scenic America, one the nation's only nonprofit organizations dedicated to preserving and protecting America's scenic beauty. In a letter dated May 13, Scenic America President Mark Falzone called for the transmission lines to be buried underground as opposed to strung up along Michigan's skyline. 'This project's reliance on overhead lines threatens the scenic character of some of Michigan's most ecologically sensitive areas and agriculturally important communities,' Falzone wrote. 'Despite the common belief that transmission lines are too expensive to [place] underground, undergrounding transmission lines can prove to be a cost-effective method for electrical infrastructure.' Klein believed the lines should at the very least be installed underground given Michigan's recent struggle with ice storms, tornadoes and other extreme weather events that have knocked out power lines for days or weeks at a time. A request for comment from ITC on resident concerns and the project at large was not returned at the time of publication. As residents like Klein await the Michigan Public Service Commission's decision on moving the projects forward, they may be getting some assistance from the Michigan House of Representatives. A Republican-sponsored bill introduced last week aims to guarantee property owners a fair opportunity to challenge eminent domain for transmission lines, much like the planned projects from ITC Holdings Corp. House Bill 4526, sponsored by freshman Rep. Jennifer Wortz (R-Quincy), was drafted and introduced after hearing from residents in Branch County and their opposition to the line running through their land. 'State government must always protect the people's fundamental rights – including property rights,' Wortz said in a statement. 'Farmers don't want the line to interfere with their irrigation systems. Homeowners don't want the line too close to their houses or ponds, and they don't want to see their trees chopped down to make way for the line.' Wortz's bill would eliminate the deference courts place on binding commission decisions. More specifically, the bill would instead require a transmission company to present clear and convincing evidence to a court that the proposed route of a new line was the most reasonable. Judges would have to instead prioritize routes within or adjacent to public land, routes within or adjacent to existing right-of-ways and easements, or routes adjacent to existing property boundaries. Wortz said that approach could help limit interference with private property as much as possible. If the commission approves the project, Wortz says area residents at least deserve their day in court. 'I'm standing up for Branch County families,' Wortz said. 'My new plan will level the playing field for property owners challenging a takeover of their land.' House Bill 4526 was introduced to the House Energy Committee last month but has yet to have a hearing. Klein, in response to the legislation, told the Advance that she appreciated Wortz's attempts to assist them and others who might be facing friction with utility companies looking to build large-scale projects in the future. Klein, however, feared that the slow pace of the Legislature would render Wortz's bill inapplicable to the ITC project without giving the bill some sort of retroactive effect.
