Sign Up for Alerts
Sign up to receive receive industry-specific emails from our legal team.
Sign Up for Alerts
We provide tailored, industry-specific legal updates to our clients and other friends of the firm.
Areas of Interest
January 28th, 2022
John B. Harris quoted in The Hill on January 6 Selection Committee Subpoena
Ethics & Professional Responsibility Litigation Partner John B. Harris was quoted in the article, “Jan. 6 Panel's Subpoena furthers Complications for Rudy Giuliani, DOJ” published by The Hill. The article discusses the January 6 Selection Committee’s subpoena of Giuliani and other lawyers who pushed the Trump agenda by denying the election results of Joe Biden’s win. John discussed the types of claims Mr. Giuliani might assert to avoid the subpoena – including attorney-client privilege.
“Stripping aside all of the other issues and all of the concerns that the committee has, the idea that there was actually legal advice that was being rendered here or that these discussions could have been privileged, I think that that is colorable depending on a lot of other facts,” said Harris, adding that “[a] memo about what the Vice President’s rights, duties and obligations are with respect to certification — that sounds to me like a kind of classic legal research and that you could absolutely give it to your client and not necessarily believe that you were committing a crime or fraud. It’s a legal issue that somebody like the president could have been entitled to know.”
John pointed out that with an attorney-client privilege claim, “You never know what sort of sympathetic ear you’re going to get if you’re challenging a subpoena so you probably spin the wheel and see what happens. . . .He could get an amenable judge.”
John concluded: “So I assume that’s going to be how they approach this — that ‘We didn’t know and we don’t know that this was an illegal thing. We thought that this was a perfectly appropriate use of our legal skills.’ And how that flies eventually, who knows, but it’s going to take a long time to resolve.”
Read the article here. (Behind paywall)
Other Quoted
The Battle over California’s Bill to Regulate how Insurers Handle Personal Data
Rick Borden is quoted in the Continuing Education of the Bar’s (CEB) DailyNews in an article on the proposed California data privacy law, Senate Bill 354, which would extend greater data privacy protections to the insurance industry. The Insurance Consumer Privacy Protection Act (ICPPA) 2025 would expand the California’s existing insurance-specific privacy law, known as the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act (IIPPA).
The article stated, “Rick Borden, a partner with Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz who focuses on data strategy and privacy, said California may be acting too soon because revised regulations and guidance are coming down the pike. A working group at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is moving ahead with updates to its Model law 672, which each state has either adopted or adopted in substantially similar form. ‘Let them do their stuff,’ Borden said.”
He pointed to the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) comment letter, written on behalf of 1,200 companies comprising nearly 60% of the country’s property and casualty insurance market. It also recommended CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act) regulators to wait.
But the bill’s author Senator Monique Limón and its sponsor, California Insurance Commissioner Richard Lara, are moving forward with the bill.
Mr. Borden also noted “that advertising and marketing is one of the most important areas that California’s proposed new protections could cover.”
“‘Certain advertising is not subject to GLBA [Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act], so already would be subject to CCPA,’ he said. ‘Because you’re not their customer, yet. And this isn’t about a financial transaction with them.’ The revised insurance laws would cover data collection, including for advertising, that is a part of covered insurance relationships.” View article. (Cost-free registration required.)
July 8 2025
In a Data-Obsessed World, Attorneys Welcome Privacy Law Specialization
The Los Angeles Times quotes Daniel M. Goldberg on the California State Bar’s decision to offer a specialization in privacy law. Mr. Goldberg stated that the area of privacy regulation has been exploding with growth, with California on the forefront —driving a need for designating leaders in the field. “‘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.’”
Mr. Goldberg emphasized California's pioneering role in privacy regulation. He referenced the state’s passing “the first comprehensive privacy law (the California 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 noted the state had also been a leader in enforcement, citing activity of the Attorney General’s office and the California Privacy Protection Agency’s multiple enforcement actions.
Mr. Goldberg also explained why data privacy is an increasing legal practice at 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.'" View Article
June 26 2025
Legal, Regulatory Woes Could Mark New Era for Influencers
Hannah E. Taylor is quoted in FTCWatch on class actions against influencers and the brands they represent. Such lawsuits alleging deceptive advertising are now seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Ms. Taylor discussed this trend and commented on the FTC’s position, the NAD’s increased attention to influencer marketing, the responsibility of brands, and AI tools used to monitor content. View Article. (Subscription required)
June 24 2025
