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
September 14th, 2015
Proposed Rule May Perhaps Propose a Momentary Admission
The New York state court system has proposed a new rule authorizing out-of-state and foreign attorneys to practice in New York temporarily, the state’s Office of Court Administration has announced. The proposed rule change — which was successfully opposed for more than a decade by lawyers worried about losing business to neighboring states — would bring New York in line with a national consensus regarding interstate and international law practice: forty-five other states have already adopted a similar rule. Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at NYU Law School, characterized the state’s longstanding reluctance to open its courts to out-of-staters as a case of “misguided economic protectionism.” “New York’s failure to adopt a temporary practice rule has not only been bewildering and a great disappointment, it also reveals a failure to recognize that today lawyers routinely cross state lines,” Gillers wrote in an email. New York’s proposed rule is based on a model rule passed by the American Bar Association in 2002. In the decade after the ABA rule was passed, New York was one of only a handful of states that declined to follow the ABA’s lead. Gillers added that New York’s reticence prompted a rule in Connecticut barring New York lawyers from temporary practice, since New York doesn’t afford the same benefit to Connecticut lawyers. Ronald Minkoff, a Manhattan litigator who sits on the State Bar’s Committee on Standards of Attorney Conduct, the group primarily responsible for pushing the rule change through, said the new rule modernizes law practice in New York. “We’re in the 21st century here,” he said. “People are regularly going to depositions, meetings, et cetera, across state lines. We need to get with the program.” Another reason for the rule, Minkoff suggested, is that large numbers of lawyers were already practicing across state lines, in violation of the state’s ban. “I would characterize the rule against unauthorized practice of law as ‘honored in the breach,’” Minkoff said, channeling Shakespeare. In a 2012 report co-authored by Minkoff, the State Bar explained that “temporary practice in New York is already commonly thought to be permitted under case law construing the existing statutes.” A new rule authorizing temporary practice, the report suggested, would “clarify rather than contradict current understandings.” Asked whether the battle over the rule was a fight between lawyers at large law firms in New York City, who regularly do business with out-of-state and international clients, and smaller firms and solo practitioners outside the city, Gillers brushed aside the notion.
© 2015 Legal Monitor Worldwide. All Rights Reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Other Quoted
Companies Sought Help From Privacy Vendors. They Still Got Fined
Daniel M. Goldberg is quoted in Bloomberg Law on problems faced by companies who have relied on compliance vendors to help them navigate new privacy laws. The article stated that vendors operating with little oversight, outdated tech have “left businesses with consumer-facing websites open to fines and other enforcement actions.”
Bloomberg Law noted, “For example, giving consumers the option to disable cookies may not turn off all of a company’s tracking technology. So consumer data could still be automatically sent to a third party for advertising.
“Vendors cannot just repurpose tools meant to comply with EU’s data protection law for California’s rules, said Daniel M. Goldberg, chair of the data strategy, privacy & security group at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC.
"‘Many solutions are solutions that are built for one purpose,’ Goldberg said, adding that some vendors’ ‘default configurations often aren’t drafted in a way that is sufficient to address US privacy law.’” View Article.
July 14 2025
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
