Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Robbins LLP, a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit against Sana Biotechnology, Inc. (NASDAQ: SANA). The case was filed on behalf of investors who purchased Sana securities between March 17, 2023, and November 4, 2024.
According to the complaint, Sana made materially misleading statements and failed to disclose critical information related to its financial health and product pipeline during the class period.
Throughout the class period, Sana Biotechnology presented itself as financially stable and positioned to advance multiple promising therapies.
However, investors now allege that this narrative was incomplete and misleading. The complaint asserts that Sana was facing significant financial challenges that jeopardized its ability to continue operations at current levels or support its full portfolio of product candidates.
Specifically, the lawsuit claims that:
The company was at risk of running out of cash needed to maintain operations and support development programs.
Several key therapies in the pipeline — including SC291 (oncology), SC379, and SG299 — were less promising than publicly stated.
Sana intended to reduce or discontinue funding for those therapies and implement significant staff reductions to preserve cash.
As a result, the company allegedly overstated its financial capacity and the strength of its product development efforts.
When this information came to light, Sana’s stock declined, causing substantial losses for investors who had relied on the company’s earlier public statements.
If you purchased or acquired Sana securities during the specified period and suffered losses, you may be eligible to participate in the class action. Robbins LLP is currently speaking with affected shareholders and reviewing potential claims.
To learn more or to take action, investors can:
Call Robbins LLP at (800) 350-6003
Contact attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr. via email: adumas@robbinsllp.com
Submit an inquiry through the firm’s website
Sana Biotechnology is a clinical-stage company pioneering engineered cell and gene therapies to treat serious diseases. With a focus on in vivo and ex vivo cell engineering, Sana is developing innovative approaches to repair and control genes, replace damaged cells, and ultimately change the course of conditions such as cancer, neurological disorders, and autoimmune diseases. The company aims to deliver transformative outcomes through its cutting-edge science, scalable platforms, and commitment to addressing high unmet medical needs.
Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized law firm focused on shareholder and consumer rights. The firm represents investors in securities fraud, corporate misconduct, and fiduciary duty cases, helping to recover losses and improve corporate governance. With a proven track record and commitment to accountability, Robbins LLP continues to be a trusted advocate for investor protection.
Ballard Spahr Secures PRC Approval for $7.2M Hydrogen Fueling Project
Mullin Discusses Trade Policy: Insights from a Leading Legal Journalist
Gone Girls: Netflix Thriller Sparks Legal and Factual Debate
Jet Set Nightclub Tragedy: Roof Collapses During Rubby Pérez Concert, Multiple Dead.
What began as a celebration of Dominican music turned into a devastating catastrophe. In the early hours of the morning, during a packed live performance by merengue legend Rubby Pérez, the roof of the Jet Set nightclub suddenly collapsed. Multiple people are confirmed dead, and many more have been injured.
De un tradicional “Lunes de Jet Set”, pasamos a una gran tragedia que hasta ahora ha dejado cantidades de fallecidos y heridos. Esta noche se reportó el colapso total del techo de la discoteca Jet Set, durante la presentación del merenguero Ruby Pérez. pic.twitter.com/LP23DMUIQV
— RECONOCIDOS.NET (@Reconocidosnet) April 8, 2025
Witnesses described the moment of collapse as sudden and chaotic, with some reporting a loud explosion moments before the structure gave way.
Emergency teams arrived quickly, but the damage was already done. Rubble, twisted metal, and disbelief filled the air. As of now, Pérez’s condition and whereabouts remain unclear, adding even more uncertainty to an already tragic event.
The focus is now turning to the critical questions that follow every public disaster: Who knew? Who should have acted? And who will be held accountable?
Under Dominican law, the owners and operators of public venues like Jet Set are required to maintain buildings that meet structural and safety standards. If the collapse was the result of ignored warnings, outdated infrastructure, or failure to follow building codes, civil and even criminal liability could follow.
Investigators will be combing through permits, inspection records, and any signs that this disaster could and should have been avoided.
At the same time, attention is shifting toward the public agencies tasked with oversight. If this venue was allowed to operate despite known structural risks, then the fault may extend beyond private hands. Lapses in inspection, rubber-stamped approvals, or even corruption could all come under scrutiny in the weeks ahead.
The potential legal consequences are significant. If evidence shows that negligence played a role, especially if officials or business owners ignored safety concerns, criminal charges such as involuntary manslaughter could be on the table.
Similar cases in other countries have seen club owners, event organizers, and even government officials prosecuted when public safety took a back seat to profit or convenience.
For now, prosecutors are waiting on the results of forensic engineering reports and structural evaluations.
As lawsuits loom, another layer of complexity enters the scene: insurance. Whether the nightclub had adequate liability coverage could determine how quickly victims' families receive compensation or whether they’ll face long legal battles for justice.
There’s also the question of force majeure, a term buried in contracts that refers to unforeseeable events. But when a roof collapse happens in a building that may have been structurally compromised, the “unforeseeable” defense becomes harder to claim.
These debates are likely to play out in both courtrooms and public opinion in the months ahead.
The Jet Set nightclub tragedy isn't the first time structural safety has made headlines in the Dominican Republic. In early 2023, a four-story furniture store in La Vega collapsed, raising nationwide concerns about construction standards and building oversight.
That same month, a young American tourist, Domonique Gray-Berroa, died after falling from the roof of a bar in the Colonial Zone, another stark reminder of the risks posed by inadequate safety measures.
These incidents, like the collapse at Jet Set, point to deeper systemic issues. Deficiencies in enforcement, aging infrastructure, and overlooked safety risks highlight the urgent need for comprehensive reform in public venue safety standards.
Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) is doubling down on efforts to reshape U.S. trade policy, declaring in a new social media post that America is “resetting the trade imbalance” and finally “putting America First.”
The announcement, shared via X, was accompanied by a nearly two-minute video in which Mullin praised recent legislative and diplomatic actions aimed at bolstering domestic manufacturing and reducing reliance on foreign supply chains.
“This is a turning point,” Mullin said in the video. “We’re no longer sitting back while our workers and our economy are undercut. The American people deserve a trade policy that works for them, not for global elites.”
We're resetting the trade imbalance and finally putting America First. pic.twitter.com/OadMeHSn2A
— Markwayne Mullin (@SenMullin) April 7, 2025
The statement appears to be part of a broader effort by the senator to highlight economic wins and reinforce his commitment to nationalist economic principles, a key theme among Republican lawmakers in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections.
Mullin’s economic message arrives at a moment of heightened controversy. Just one day before the trade post went live, the senator faced sharp criticism over remarks suggesting that there would be fewer instances of “fake news” if Americans were allowed to “use violence against journalists.”
The comment, made during a public appearance, sparked immediate backlash from press freedom advocates and fellow lawmakers across the aisle. Critics described the remark as reckless and dangerous, especially in an era where journalists continue to face threats and harassment.
Mullin later clarified that his comment was not to be taken literally.
“It was obviously a joke,” Mullin told reporters when pressed on the issue. “I do not condone violence against anyone, especially not members of the press. The point I was trying to make, albeit with sarcasm, was about the frustration many Americans feel over biased reporting.”
Despite the clarification, organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Society of Professional Journalists condemned the remark, calling on elected officials to uphold standards of civil discourse and to avoid rhetoric that could incite harm.
Senator Mullin is known for his blunt rhetoric and assertive public stance, which has solidified his support among conservative voters in Oklahoma.
However, his remarks have also attracted criticism, with some considered inappropriate for a sitting member of Congress.
The contrast was evident this week. While promoting his trade and economic agenda, Mullin drew criticism for suggesting that violence against journalists could curb misinformation, a comment he later characterized as a joke.
The episode has prompted renewed scrutiny of his communication style and its potential impact on his effectiveness as a policymaker.
The U.S. Supreme Court has given the green light for the government to resume deporting undocumented migrants under a centuries-old wartime law, handing a temporary win to the Trump administration.
In a 5-4 decision released Monday, the Court lifted a lower court's order that had stopped the deportation of dozens of Venezuelan migrants.
The ruling allows the federal government to continue removing migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, a law from 1798 that was originally designed for use during declared wars.
While the justices sided with the government on technical grounds, they also made it clear that individuals facing deportation under the act must be given a chance to challenge it in court.
Donald Trump cited the Alien Enemies Act last month to justify rounding up suspected gang members from Venezuela. The administration claimed these individuals were linked to Tren de Aragua, a violent criminal group with roots in South America.
Videos released by federal authorities showed migrants in chains, their heads shaved, being transported to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. The images were meant to send a message: the administration was serious about enforcing immigration laws.
Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social, writing:
"The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law… A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!"
The ruling came after District Judge James Boasberg temporarily blocked the deportations in March. His order stopped further flights after several migrants had already been sent out of the country.
One key issue was where the case should be heard. The migrants involved were detained in Texas, but their attorneys had filed the lawsuit in Washington, D.C.
The Supreme Court decided the restraining order couldn’t stand due to that jurisdiction mismatch.
Still, the justices were clear: just because the Alien Enemies Act is being used doesn't mean migrants lose their rights.
"Those subject to removal under the AEA must be notified and given a chance to contest it," the Court wrote.
Attorneys for some of the deported migrants say the government got it wrong. They argue their clients had no ties to gangs, had not committed any crimes, and were targeted largely because of their tattoos or appearance.
Critics are warning that this kind of enforcement, based on a law from more than 200 years ago, could lead to mistakes—or worse, abuse of power.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is a rarely used U.S. law that allows the government to detain or deport non-citizens from countries the United States is at war with. Originally passed as part of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts, it remains the only one of those laws still in effect today.
The law grants the president broad authority to act against nationals of enemy states during wartime, even without criminal charges. Historically, it was used during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II to target citizens of Britain, Germany, Japan, and Italy who were living in the U.S.
In modern times, its use has become highly controversial, especially as it's now being invoked outside of a formally declared war.
Critics argue this stretches the law’s original intent and raises serious concerns about due process and civil liberties, particularly when it's used to justify immigration enforcement based on perceived threats rather than wartime status.
Ballard Spahr is playing a pivotal role in bringing one of Washington state’s most forward-thinking clean energy projects to life.
Working alongside Douglas County Public Utility District, the firm helped secure unanimous approval for a $7.2 million expansion of the utility’s green hydrogen operations.
The approval opens the door for new infrastructure that will provide hydrogen fuel for heavy-duty vehicles, support a public fueling station, and enhance the local energy supply. It is a forward-looking project with the potential to influence how communities think about energy use and sustainability.
Ellie Perka, a partner in Ballard Spahr’s Seattle office, led the legal work that helped the project gain approval from the state’s Project Review Committee. Known for her deep knowledge of Washington’s alternative contracting rules, Ellie brought decades of experience to the table.
Ms Perka worked closely with J-U-B Engineers to guide the proposal through the approval process, which resulted in full committee support an outcome that speaks volumes about the clarity and strength of the plan.
The Douglas County PUD already operates a five-megawatt green hydrogen production facility, one of the few of its kind in the country.
With the new expansion, they’ll add hydrogen fueling infrastructure and a fuel cell generator, which will not only serve local energy needs but also help fuel the future of clean transportation. If construction stays on schedule, the new systems will be fully operational by mid 2026.
Ms Perka's recent move to Ballard Spahr, part of the firm’s combination with Lane Powell earlier this year, has already opened the door to even more opportunities like this one. Ellie partnered with J-U-B Engineers on the project and was one of over 150 attorneys who joined Ballard Spahr through its January 1, 2025 combination with Lane Powell.
Ballard Spahr LLP is a national law firm with over 750 attorneys in 18 offices across the U.S. The firm provides legal counsel in litigation, business, real estate, finance, and intellectual property. Known for its collaborative culture and commitment to excellence, Ballard Spahr expanded into the Pacific Northwest in 2025 through a combination with Lane Powell. The firm is widely recognized for its work in public infrastructure, energy, and its leadership in diversity and inclusion.
A Gonzales woman has pleaded guilty in federal court to receiving child sexual abuse material that she helped arrange through a series of photo shoots involving a minor.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Hannah Kinchen, 40, admitted to coordinating with a photographer, who described himself as a pedophile to conduct photo sessions under the pretense of supporting the minor’s modeling aspirations.
During the sessions, the minor was posed in sexually suggestive clothing, including thongs and G-strings.
Hannah Kinchen received most of the resulting images through an online file-sharing platform. Federal investigators determined that some of the photos met the legal definition of child pornography. Officials also stated that some of the material was later sold.
Kinchen pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography. She is scheduled to be sentenced on July 15, and faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and up to 20 years in federal prison.
Sentencing will be determined by a U.S. District Court judge, who will consider the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The case was investigated by the FBI New Orleans Division – Baton Rouge Resident Agency. The prosecution is being led by Trial Attorney Rachel L. Rothberg of the DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristen L. Craig for the Middle District of Louisiana, with assistance from CEOS Trial Attorney Charles Schmitz.
Project Safe Childhood is a nationwide initiative launched by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006 to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse, particularly online.
Led by U.S. Attorneys' Offices and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), PSC works by coordinating federal, state, and local law enforcement resources to:
Identify and rescue victims of online child exploitation
Investigate and prosecute individuals who exploit children
Raise public awareness about online safety and prevention
The program plays a critical role in cases involving child pornography, online predators, sextortion, and other forms of internet-facilitated abuse.
Sextortion: A Growing Threat to Teen Mental Health and Safety
Mary Kate Cornett v. Pat McAfee: Defamation & Cyberbullying Case
Ropes & Gray has advised Dallas-based private equity firm Trive Capital on the successful final closing of Trive Capital Fund V, LP, securing $2.7 billion in total commitments - surpassing its $2.5 billion target. The fund close was announced on April 3.
Fund V continues Trive's decade- ong strategy of investing in middle-market companies with a sector-agnostic, situation specific approach and a strong emphasis on hands-on operational value creation. Trive's previous fund closed at $2.0 billion in April 2022.
The fund has already made seven investments, illustrating Trive’s off-the-run sourcing and deep value strategy. Over the past year, across all funds, Trive has completed 10 platform investments, 19 add-ons, and 3 exits/dividend recaps, including the IPO of Karman Space & Defense.
Trive Co-Founders Conner Searcy and Chris Zugaro credited the fund's success to continued LP support and the firm's value-driven, operationally intensive investment approach.
Trive Capital is a Dallas-based private equity firm managing over $8 billion in regulatory assets. The firm specializes in investing in middle-market companies with potential for significant growth and transformation.
Trive employs a flexible, operationally focused approach, working closely with management teams to unlock value in a variety of complex or unique investment situations across diverse industries.
Legal counsel was provided by a Ropes & Gray team led by partners Jessica Marlin, Marc Biamonte, Sharon Remmer, Jim Brown, and Patricia Teixeira, along with counsel Casey Burns White.
Ropes & Gray is a global law firm providing comprehensive legal services to clients across a wide range of industries. With a reputation for excellence, the firm is known for its expertise in areas such as corporate law, private equity, M&A, intellectual property, litigation, regulatory matters, and finance.
Founded in 1865, Ropes & Gray has grown to include offices in major cities around the world, including New York, London, Hong Kong, and Boston.
The firm serves a diverse clientele, including multinational corporations, financial institutions, and government entities, helping them navigate complex legal challenges.
Ropes & Gray is also recognised for its commitment to pro bono work, diversity, and inclusion, ensuring that its values extend beyond the courtroom. With a team of skilled professionals and a client-centric approach, Ropes & Gray remains a leader in the legal industry.
Picture this: you’ve hired an expert - someone whose knowledge and experience you trust to help you navigate a complicated issue. It could be a lawyer drafting a contract, a surveyor checking out a new property, or an accountant sorting out your finances. But then, something feels off.
Deadlines are missed, communication is sparse, and you begin to wonder if you’re getting what you paid for. This is where the idea of professional negligence comes into play.
Professional negligence happens when a service falls short of what a competent professional should deliver. As the client, you’re not powerless in this situation.
With a bit of forethought and some common-sense steps, you can reduce the chance of disputes and protect your interests. Here are some tips to help you stay on solid ground.
1. Choose Your Expert Wisely
It’s tempting to hire the first professional who promises fast results or a rock-bottom price. But taking a little extra time to find the right fit can save you headaches down the line.
Start by checking their qualifications and credentials, are they licensed or certified?
A quick online search for reviews and testimonials can also help you get a feel for how reliable they are.
James R. Steiner-Dillon, a legal scholar, discusses the complexities of holding expert witnesses accountable for malpractice:
"Expert witnesses are rarely sued for malpractice because it is usually difficult to prove that the litigant's injury was caused by the expert's negligence."
If possible, talk to people who’ve worked with them before. Personal recommendations carry weight, especially if you know someone who had a great experience.
And if your needs are highly specific, say you’re dealing with a unique legal situation or a tricky financial issue, look for someone with a proven track record in that area. It’s like choosing a doctor: you want a specialist when it really matters.
2. Be Clear About What You Want
One of the easiest ways to prevent misunderstandings is to spell out exactly what you need from the get-go. Don’t just rely on verbal agreements; put it in writing.
A clear, detailed contract outlining the scope of work, fees, deadlines, and expectations can prevent confusion later on. It also gives you a handy reference point if something doesn’t go as planned.
Good communication isn’t a one-and-done thing, though. Stay involved. Check in regularly, ask questions, and speak up if something seems off. By staying engaged, you make it harder for mistakes to slip through unnoticed.
3. Keep a Paper Trail
If issues arise, having all the details at your fingertips can make a world of difference. Save your emails, contracts, invoices, and any notes from meetings or calls.
If the professional makes changes to the plan, keep track of what was agreed upon and why. That way, if you need to address a problem or pursue a claim, you’ll have solid evidence to back you up.
4. Stay Alert to Warning Signs
Sometimes, you can spot potential trouble before it escalates. Maybe the professional suddenly stops responding to calls or emails. Perhaps deadlines are missed with no explanation. If their behavior or quality of work shifts unexpectedly, don’t ignore it.
A good rule of thumb is to trust your gut. If something feels off, raise the issue early. Often, addressing concerns head-on can prevent a larger dispute. And if you’re unsure, consider getting a second opinion. A fresh perspective from another expert might confirm your concerns or put your mind at ease.
5. Know When to Get Help
Understanding your rights can make all the difference. If you believe the professional’s work is subpar, you don’t have to navigate the situation alone. Consulting a legal expert can clarify your options and help you figure out next steps.
The sooner you take action, the easier it is to protect yourself, especially since there are often time limits on filing claims.
Many professionals carry insurance that covers negligence claims, which means that if you have a valid complaint, there’s a good chance you’ll be able to recover your losses. Knowing that you have options can make the process less daunting and more manageable.
More Articles from Lawyer Monthly
It happened quietly. No headlines, no statements—just a short entry in a Manhattan court docket.
A woman known only as Jane Doe 11 quietly ended her civil lawsuit last Friday against Dr. Henry Jarecki, a wealthy psychiatrist and longtime acquaintance of Jeffrey Epstein.
The case had accused Jarecki of playing a direct role in Epstein’s abuse network, alleging that he used his professional position to gain control over her, then opened the door to her exploitation.
There was no press conference. No comment from either side. Just a simple entry in a Manhattan federal court: case dismissed, voluntarily.
With that, one of the few active legal efforts to hold someone from Epstein’s inner circle accountable came to an abrupt end.
In her complaint, Jane Doe 11 described Jarecki as someone who didn’t just turn a blind eye but actively contributed to her abuse. She said he used his influence as a psychiatrist to manipulate her, breaking her down emotionally and mentally, and making it easier for Epstein to take control.
She described herself, hauntingly, as a “modern-day sex slave.” The words were blunt, painful, and hard to ignore.
Though Dr. Henry Jarecki hasn’t been criminally charged in connection with Epstein, his name has appeared more than once in the sprawling web of associates.
He transitioned from psychiatry into commodities and high-level philanthropy, all while maintaining a connection to Epstein that many still struggle to understand. This lawsuit was one of the first public attempts to examine that relationship in detail.
That part remains unclear. The case was dismissed without prejudice, which means she’s allowed to refile in the future.
But there’s been no indication she plans to. No settlement has been announced, and no official reason has been given.
There are a few possibilities. It might’ve been a tactical decision maybe her legal team needed more time, more evidence, or a different approach. It’s also possible a confidential settlement was reached. Or perhaps, like many others who’ve taken on powerful people in court, she simply couldn’t keep going.
Civil litigation is expensive, exhausting, and deeply personal especially in cases involving abuse. Survivors aren’t just telling their stories; they’re reliving them, under the scrutiny of lawyers, judges, and sometimes the media.
And when the other side has money, influence, and elite legal help, the fight becomes even harder.
Sometimes, stepping back isn’t surrender it’s self-preservation.
If you’ve been following what’s unfolded in the wake of the Epstein scandal, this story feels familiar. Women step forward. They speak their truth, they take legal action. But over time, many of those cases seem to disappear, quietly settled, dropped without a word, or lost in a tangle of legal process.
The case may be over, but what Jane Doe 11 shared still matters. Choosing to step away from the courtroom doesn’t erase the experience, it just shows how incredibly hard it can be to seek justice, even when someone finds the strength to speak up.
Jane Doe 11 case also raises deeper, more uncomfortable questions about the people who surrounded Epstein. Not just the obvious ones, but those who had influence, authority, and, in some cases, a duty to protect. Therapists. Lawyers. Financiers. People who may have looked the other way or worse.
When stories like this disappear from the news cycle, it becomes easier to forget how far reaching the damage really was.
Legally speaking, the case is closed. At least for now.
Whether Jane Doe 11 will return to court remains to be seen. But the lawsuit joins a growing list of legal efforts tied to Epstein that have ended without trial, without answers, and without closure.
Not long ago, counterintelligence sounded like something pulled straight from a spy thriller, dark alleys, encrypted messages, Cold War-style espionage.
These days, though, that shadowy world is inching closer to something much more familiar: the law office.
At its heart, counterintelligence (CI) is about identifying and stopping threats, whether they come from foreign governments, rogue insiders, or sophisticated cybercriminals. It’s not always about spies in trench coats.
Sometimes, it’s as mundane and as dangerous as an employee leaking confidential files to a competitor, or a law firm unknowingly caught in a state-sponsored phishing attack.
Today, these kinds of threats aren’t just a problem for national security agencies, they’re squarely on the radar of legal professionals. Especially those working with corporate clients, defense contractors, or anyone handling sensitive information.
As Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent and Yale lecturer, puts it:
“Counterintelligence is, in effect, chasing ghosts. That’s why the tools used to investigate foreign intelligence activity are secret.”
Lawyers might not be chasing ghosts but they’re often the ones who have to clean up the mess when something goes wrong.
You don’t have to be working on a government contract to attract the attention of threat actors. In recent years, law firms, tech startups, energy companies, and healthcare providers have all been caught in the crosshairs of cyberattacks and insider leaks.
And when things go sideways, it’s usually the legal team that’s first to respond - navigating disclosure obligations, untangling liability, reviewing contracts, and working closely with cybersecurity experts.
What makes counterintelligence particularly challenging is the legal maze it creates. Depending on the jurisdiction and industry, attorneys might be grappling with laws like the Espionage Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or cross-border regulations like the GDPR.
In the UK, David Anderson, former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, once noted, “The law governing the intelligence services is difficult to understand, inconsistent and has no regulatory concept.”
That ambiguity is a major hurdle, especially when timing and clarity matter most.
And there’s more at stake than just legal compliance. Lawyers are stewards of highly sensitive data.
A counterintelligence breach could put client confidentiality, professional ethics, and firm reputation on the line. One misstep could spark a malpractice claim or trigger a bar investigation.
Consider this: An employee at a defense tech firm is quietly recruited by a foreign entity. Over a period of months, they begin leaking internal schematics and research materials in exchange for cryptocurrency. The breach isn’t discovered until a foreign competitor launches a product with strikingly similar features.
In that moment, the legal team becomes the center of the response, coordinating with law enforcement, overseeing internal investigations, reviewing confidentiality agreements, and preparing the company for possible legal and financial fallout.
William C. Banks, a professor at Syracuse University who has written extensively on national security law, put it simply:
“Legal frameworks must evolve to meet these types of cross-disciplinary threats.”
In other words, when a crisis hits, the rules aren't always clear and lawyers need to be ready to respond anyway.
You don’t need a security clearance to be proactive. Start by building real partnerships across departments: legal, IT, compliance, and HR. Align on how to detect and respond to insider threats and potential breaches.
It also pays to stay informed. Understanding the evolving web of international surveillance laws and data protection rules is no longer optional for firms with cross-border clients.
And don’t overlook the fundamentals. Confidentiality training and internal protocols should be revisited regularly, especially as remote work and cloud-based tools change how legal work gets done.
As Harvey Rishikof, former legal counsel to the Deputy Director of the FBI, pointed out:
“Legal standards are often stress-tested during national security crises.”
Being prepared isn’t about paranoia, it’s about professionalism.
Counterintelligence might still conjure images of spycraft and secret missions, but its implications are now firmly rooted in the legal world. For law firms, in-house counsel, and compliance teams, it’s not a matter of if CI-related issues will arise, it’s when.
Whether you're reviewing contracts for a government contractor or safeguarding your firm’s own internal data, understanding counterintelligence law is fast becoming part of modern legal practice. It's not a niche, it’s a necessity.
What’s the difference between cybersecurity law and counterintelligence law?
Cybersecurity law generally deals with protecting systems and data from unauthorized access. Counterintelligence law focuses on detecting and responding to espionage, sabotage, and insider threats often with national security implications. The two often overlap.
Do law firms really face counterintelligence threats?
Yes. Law firms handle valuable, sensitive data making them attractive targets for foreign adversaries and bad actors. Attacks may come through phishing, ransomware, or insider leaks.
Is this relevant to small or mid-sized firms?
Absolutely. Smaller firms can be seen as “soft targets” by attackers, especially if they serve clients in high-risk sectors like defense, energy, or tech. Any firm handling sensitive or proprietary data is at risk.
What laws should lawyers be familiar with?
In the U.S., key laws include the Espionage Act, FISA, and the Patriot Act. Internationally, the GDPR and regional surveillance laws also play a role, especially for firms with multinational clients.
How can firms protect themselves?
Start with strong internal policies, regular training, and open communication between legal and IT teams. Know your reporting obligations and have a response plan ready in case of a breach.
Genomics, Consent, and the Privacy Law Puzzle in the US
Explore how emerging biotech and evolving data laws are reshaping patient consent and genomic privacy rights.
Miami Airport’s $330M Legal Overhaul Explained
Inside the legal strategy behind one of Florida’s largest infrastructure expansions in recent years.
Fired for Political Speech? What State Laws Say in 2025
An in-depth look at employment law and free speech protections across the U.S.
Hailie Deegan’s Indy NXT Transition: Legal and Sponsorship Challenges
Racing meets regulation—navigating contract law and athlete branding in motorsports.
Valneva Faces Legal Scrutiny in Vaccine Investigation
What’s next for Valneva as Schall Law launches a probe into vaccine data and investor impact?
