This webinar presents basic practice pointers to avoid malpractice and disciplinary actions, and how to respond to claims of malpractice or unethical behavior if they arise. The panel also discusses the role that malpractice insurance plays in these situations and the ramifications of a malpractice judgment or disciplinary action. Model Rules addressed may include: those that govern the client-lawyer relationship (Rules 1.1 through 1.10; 1.13; and 1.16); those that that speak to transactions with persons other than clients (Rules 4.1 through 4.4); those that govern the responsibilities of managing and supervisory lawyers, subordinate lawyers, non-lawyer assistance, independence, unauthorized practice of law, and multijurisdictional practice (Rules 5.1 through 5.5); and those that govern communication, including advertising and solicitation of clients (Rules 7.1 through 7.5). Part of the webinar series: LEGAL ETHICS – BEST PRACTICES 2022 See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/

2. 2
Practical and entertaining education for
attorneys, accountants, business owners and
executives, and investors.

3. Thank you to our Sponsor, Sunburst Digital.
3

4. Disclaimer
The material in this webinar is for informational purposes only. It should not be considered
legal, financial or other professional advice. You should consult with an attorney or other
appropriate professional to determine what may be best for your individual needs. While
Financial Poise™ takes reasonable steps to ensure that information it publishes is accurate,
Financial Poise™ makes no guaranty in this regard.
4

5. Meet the Faculty
MODERATOR:
Michelle Gershfeld - Law Offices of Michelle Gershfeld
PANELISTS:
Bernard Burk – Visitor, PennState Law; Visitor, Seattle University School of Law
George Kuney - University of Tennessee College of Law
Gerald Meyer - MoloLamken LLP
Kathryn Nadro - Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger LLP
5

6. About This Webinar - How to Avoid Malpractice &
Disciplinary Actions - General DOs and DON’Ts
This webinar presents basic practice pointers to avoid malpractice and disciplinary actions,
and how to respond to claims of malpractice or unethical behavior if they arise. The panel
also discusses the role that malpractice insurance plays in these situations and the
ramifications of a malpractice judgment or disciplinary action. Model Rules addressed may
include: some of those that govern the client-lawyer relationship (including Model Rules 1.1;
1.5, 1.7-1.11, 1.15, 1.16, and 1.18); rules governing the obligations to manage and supervise
lawyers and staff in practice organizations consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct
(including Model Rules 5.1-5.3); and rules governing communication, including advertising
and solicitation of clients (Model Rules 7.1 through 7.5).
6

7. About This Series
Legal Ethics – Best Practices
Corporate scandals make the headlines periodically, but businesses and the lawyers that
work with them face ethical challenges every day, even in situations that are legally
compliant. This webinar series examines ethical issues confronted by lawyers in a variety of
contexts. The panelists consider and recommend different approaches to ethical decision-
making and lawyers responsibilities and concerns, especially in light of the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Each Financial Poise Webinar is delivered in Plain English, understandable to investors, business owners, and
executives without much background in these areas, yet is of primary value to attorneys, accountants, and other
seasoned professionals. Each episode brings you into engaging, sometimes humorous, conversations designed to
entertain as it teaches. Each episode in the series is designed to be viewed independently of the other episodes so that
participants will enhance their knowledge of this area whether they attend one, some, or all episodes.
7

8. Episodes in this Series
#1: Best Practices Regarding Technology
Premiere date: 2/16/22
#2: Hot Off the Presses- Recent Cases & Decisions
Premiere date: 3/30/22
#3:How to Avoid Malpractice & Disciplinary Actions - General Do's and Don'ts
Premiere date: 6/22/22
8

9. Episode #3: How to Avoid Malpractice & Disciplinary Actions -
General Do’s and Don’ts
9

10. Malpractice Claims
• A 2016 ABA study showed that four out of five practicing lawyers can expect to be sued for
their professional activities (rightly or wrongly) in the course of their careers.
• Typically, to establish a valid malpractice claim, the plaintiff needs to plead and prove (by a
preponderance of the evidence) that:
✓ The attorney owed the plaintiff a professional duty;
✓ The attorney breached that duty;
✓ The breach of duty actually and proximately caused; and
✓ Compensable pecuniary damage.

11. Malpractice Claims (cont’d)
Regarding Duty and Breach:
• Professional negligence (a breach of the professional standard of care) is the most common,
but not the only, breach of duty asserted in claims against lawyers. A breach of any duty
arising out of the attorney-client relationship that causes compensable pecuniary harm is
actionable and often referred to as “legal malpractice.”
• A breach of the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality, loyalty, or candor can also ground a client’s
“malpractice” claim.
Relationship between Civil Duties and the Rules of Professional Conduct:
• In virtually all jurisdictions, a violation of a Rule of Professional Conduct is not considered
negligence per se
• Instead, the Rules are solely a basis for professional discipline, but are considered relevant
to, and to inform, the professional standard of care

12. When is a “Bad Job” Malpractice?
Malpractice cases are very fact intensive, but there are three characteristics to consider:
1. Was the attorney negligent in the first place? This is not a hindsight analysis but one
undertaken from the point of view of when the alleged mistake occurred. Was the action or
inaction consistent with the community standard of care?
2. Did the mistake cause damage? This is not as simple as it seems. Even if an attorney’s
obvious error in, say, failing to file a complaint before the statute of limitations runs, takes
place, to prevail, the client must show to a “legal certainty” that she would have won the suit
had it been timely filed, how much she would have been awarded, and that the amount
would have been collectable.
3. Are the damages sufficient to justify the investment in the malpractice suit, which is high as
it is a case within a case – prove malpractice and prove the underlying claim.

13. What is the Difference Between Malpractice and
Ethics Violations?
• Not all ethical violations will give rise to a malpractice claim (“The Rules are designed to
provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through
disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability.” Model Rules,
Preamble ¶ [20].)
• Malpractice requires harm to the client, caused by the attorney’s bad conduct
• Malpractice claims compensate harmed clients, generally in the form of money damages in
a civil lawsuit or arbitration
• Ethics proceedings affect the attorney’s license and ability to practice law

14. Retention Agreements
● Retention or engagement letters are critical for a good client relationship
• They should lay out the basis for fees, the scope of representation, whether any conflicts
of interest exist, rules about retainers, how to terminate the representation , “preferably in
writing.”
• If the lawyer is charging a contingency fee, a written retention agreement is required
• Many ethical rules are implicated in written retention agreements:
➢ Model Rule 1.0(e): informed consent (consent “after the lawyer has communicated
adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably
available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct”)

15. Retention Agreements (cont’d)
Many ethical rules are implicated in written retention agreements:
➢ Model Rule 1.5(b): Mandatory contents of retention agreements:
The scope of representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which
the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing,
before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, [except when
there is an existing relationship on set terms].”
➢ Model Rule 1.5(c): Contingent fee agreements:
“[Contingent fees are allowed except as prohibited by governing law.] A contingent fee
agreement shall be in a writing signed by the client and shall state the method by
which the fee is to be determined, including the percentages that shall accrue to the
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial,or appeal; litigation and other expenses to be
deducted from the recovery; and whether such expenses are to be deducted before or
after the contingent fee is calculated. The agreement must clearly notify the client of
any expenses for which the client will be liable whether or not the client is the
prevailing party.”

16. Retention Agreements (cont’d)
Many ethical rules are implicated in written retention agreements:
➢ Retainers and deposits against future fees and costs do not have to be documented in
writing, but it is unwise not to do so. The retainer agreement is the ideal place to
explain what the retainer or deposit is for, how and when it will be applied, and whether
the client must increase or replenish a deposit upon the lawyer’s reasonable request.
➢ Conflicts of interest must be disclosed in detail and, where consentable, receive the
client’s informed consent before the lawyer may proceed. See Model Rules 1.7-1.11,
1.18. The Model Rules do not require the lawyer’s disclosure or the client’s consent to
be in writing, but written disclosure and consent is vastly superior for clarity and
avoidance of disputes. A written retention agreement is a very good place to include
any necessary disclosures, and seek the client’s written consent.

17. Arbitration Clauses in Retention Agreements
Many lawyers use arbitration clauses in retention agreements? Should they?
Maybe:
● Some jurisdictions limit or forbid lawyers from agreeing with clients to arbitrate future
disputes, though many jurisdictions allow it.
● Some states require that the client be given an opportunity to get independent counsel
before agreeing to arbitrate legal fee disputes and legal malpractice cases

18. Arbitration Clauses in Retention Agreements
(cont’d)
● Where lawyer-client binding arbitration is permitted, its wisdom and utility really
depends on the relationship between client and attorney and the scope of the
representation
➢ Arbitration may limit discovery and provide different procedural and substantive
rights and remedies than proceeding in court (such as eliminating the right to a
jury trial)
➢ This may implicate, Model Rule 1.8(h) which prohibits lawyers from “mak[ing] an
agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer’s liability to a client for malpractice
unless the client is independently represented in making the agreement.”

19. Poor Intake Process
• Failing to check for conflicts of interest prior to discussing the matter in more detail.
✓ RPC 1.7: Conflict of Interest– Current Clients
• Starting work before the terms of the engagement are fully documented and agreed to.
✓ RPC 1.2: Scope of Representation; 1.16: Declining or Terminating Representation
• Failing to specify the scope and length of the engagement with thoughtful precision.
19

20. Termination of Engagement Letters
Model Rule 1.16(d): “Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the
client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to
which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not
been earned or incurred.”
A writing documenting the timing and terms of the termination, and the lawyer’s compliance
with the requirements of Model Rule 1.16(d) such as providing the information the client and
successor counsel may need to continue an incomplete matter and an inventory of returned
papers and property is not literally required, but is the better practice for clarity and avoidance
of disputes.
20

21. Importance of Conflict Checks
● Model Rules 1.7-1.11 and 1.18 generally prohibit attorneys from taking on or continuing an
engagement if (among other things) it will be adverse to a current client, if the
“representation…will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client,
a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer,” or if the lawyer has
confidential information from a former or prospective client that could be used against that
former or prospective client in the new representation.
● Attorneys must identify and resolve conflicts of interest prior to entering the attorney-client
relationship.

22. Importance of Conflict Checks (cont’d)
● Model Rule 5.3(a) & Comment [2] require law-firm managers to “make reasonable efforts to
ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that lawyers in the
firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.” That includes measures “designed to
detect and resolve conflicts of interest . . . .”
● Best practices use technology for initial conflicts checks and then either conflicts
professionals or questionnaires to other attorneys to catch any conflicts before they arise
● If a conflict exists, a lawyer can take the representation only if all the relevant
circumstances and the possible adverse consequences are fully disclosed and all affected
clients give informed consent, among other requirements listed in Rule 1.7(b)

23. Limiting the Scope of the Engagement
• Model Rule 1.2(c): “A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is
reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
• Informed consent here must involve full disclosure of all the limitations on the scope of the
engagement, their likely practical effects under the circumstances presented or likely to be
presented, and the potential adverse consequences of the limitations if the client agrees to
them. Model Rule 1.0(e).
23

24. Changing Fee Arrangements During
Representation
• Model Rule 1.5(b): “Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall . . . be
communicated to the client.”
• ABA Formal Ethics Opinion No. 11-458:
✓ Periodic, incremental increases in a lawyer's regular hourly billing rates are generally
permissible if such practice is communicated clearly to and accepted by the client at
the commencement of the client-lawyer relationship and any periodic increases are
reasonable under the circumstances.
✓ Modifications sought by a lawyer that change the basic nature of a fee arrangement
or significantly increase the lawyer's compensation absent an unanticipated change
in circumstances ordinarily will be unreasonable.
✓ Changes in fee arrangements that involve a lawyer acquiring an interest in the
client's business, real estate, or other nonmonetary property will ordinarily require
compliance with Rule 1.8(a).
24

25. A Trap for the Unwary: Accounting for Prepaid
Flat Fees
• Model Rule 1.15(c): “A lawyer shall deposit into a client trust account legal fees and
expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are
earned or expenses incurred.”
• But when is a prepaid flat fee “earned”? There is a surprising degree of confusion and
interstate variation in answering this question.
25

26. A Trap for the Unwary: Accounting for Prepaid Flat
Fees (cont’d)
• The answer is very important, because if a lawyer puts earned fees in a client trust account,
she is commingling her own funds with the client’s—a serious disciplinary violation. And if a
lawyer takes a prepaid flat fee into her operating account before it is properly “earned,” then
the lawyer has misappropriated client funds—also a serious disciplinary violation.
• The first thing that should be obvious is that lawyer and client should explicitly agree when a
flat fee is deemed “earned” (in whole or in parts). Otherwise the likely interpretation in a
dispute will be the one most favorable to the client—namely, after all work is complete. The
engagement letter is a good place to do that, and while no writing is required, a writing is
clearly best practice.
26

27. A Trap for the Unwary: Accounting for Prepaid
Flat Fees
• May a lawyer and client agree that a flat fee must be prepaid, and is considered earned
when paid (so that the lawyer can deposit the fee directly In her operating account and take
it into income)?
• Some states consider this arrangement permissible.
• BUT a number of states don’t!
➢ Some states have amended their version of Model Rule 1.15 to preclude treating a
prepaid flat fee as earned when paid
➢ Some states have construed the model version of Rule 1.15 to this effect, or concluded
that such an arrangement is “unreasonable” under Rule 1.5(a) (which forbids
“unreasonable”—or in some states “unconscionable”—fees), or concluded that such an
arrangement unduly burdens the client’s right to discharge the attorney before the
engagement is complete.
27

28. A Trap for the Unwary: Accounting for Prepaid
Flat Fees (cont’d)
➢ Most states that limit treatment of prepaid flat fees appear to allow for agreement that
recognizes part of a prepaid flat fee as earned when defined portions of the
engagement are completed. But most seem to insist that the relationship be roughly
proportional
➢ See, e.g., In re Mance, 980 A. 2d 1196 (D.C. Ct. App. 2009), and authorities cited.
• Bottom line: If you are going to treat a prepaid flat fee as earned at any time before work is
complete, check your jurisdiction’s version of Rule 1.15 and caselaw construing it!
28

29. Litigation Funding – Ethical and Malpractice Issues
● Litigation funding raises certain ethical issues to be navigated
● Model Rule 1.8(f) prohibits payment of legal feels by a third party unless there is informed
consent from the client, there is no interference with the attorney-client relationship (i.e.,
lawyer takes direction only from client) and the information relating to the representation is
protected by Rule 1.6 confidentiality obligations
● Lawyers receiving funding needs to understand who the client is (be aware of whenever
there is a third-party payor), especially if you are repeat player with the funder rather than
the client

30. Litigation Funding (Cont’d)
Potential malpractice risks:
• Client can claim the lawyer is more aligned with the funder than the client, and improperly
served the funder’s interests to the client’s detriment
• Client can claim the lawyer jeopardized the legal funding by failing to comply with the
funding agreement
In terms of recommending settlement, lawyers have to be aware of who will benefit from what
and how things are structured
• Remember who the client is, understand and comply with the funding arrangement make
sure the client understands that arrangement throughout the case and potential case
resolution
• The considerations are similar to those arising in contingency cases (where the lawyer’s
and client’s interests may diverge) and cases involving an insurer (where the insurer’s
and the client’s interests may diverge)

31. Prenuptial Agreement: Can the Monied
Spouse-to-Be Pay the Fees for the Lawyer Representing
the Other Spouse-to-Be?
ABA Model Rule 1.8(f):
A lawyer shall not accept compensation or direction in connection with the representation
of a client from one other than the client unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent;
(2) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment
or with the client-lawyer relationship; and
(3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by MR
1.6.

32. Paying Another’s Fees for a Prenup
Comments to Model Rule 1.8 (edited)
Person Paying for a Lawyer's Services
[11] Lawyers are frequently asked to represent a client under circumstances in which a third
person will compensate the lawyer, in whole or in part. The third person might be a relative or
friend, an indemnitor (such as a liability insurance company) or a co-client (such as a corporation
sued along with one or more of its employees). Because third-party payers frequently have
interests that differ from those of the client, including interests in minimizing the amount spent on
the representation and in learning how the representation is progressing, lawyers are prohibited
from accepting or continuing such representations unless the lawyer determines that there will be
no interference with the lawyer's independent professional judgment and there is informed
consent from the client. See also RPC 5.4(c) (prohibiting interference with a lawyer's professional
judgment by one who recommends, employs or pays the lawyer to render legal services for
another).

33. Paying Another’s Fees for a Prenup (cont’d)
Comments to Model Rule 1.8 (edited)
Person Paying for a Lawyer's Services
[12] Sometimes, it will be sufficient for the lawyer to obtain the client's informed consent
regarding the fact of the payment and the identity of the third-party payer. If, however, the fee
arrangement creates a conflict of interest for the lawyer, then the lawyer must comply with
RPC 1.7. The lawyer must also conform to the requirements of RPC 1.6 concerning
confidentiality. Under RPC 1.7(a), a conflict of interest exists if there is significant risk that the
lawyer's representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer's own interest in the
fee arrangement or by the lawyer's responsibilities to the third-party payer (for example, when
the third-party payer is a co-client). Under RPC 1.7(b), the lawyer may accept or continue the
representation with the informed consent of each affected client, unless the conflict is
nonconsentable under that paragraph. Under RPC 1.7(b), the informed consent must be
confirmed in writing.
.

34. New Guidance from the ABA on Solicitation
Model Rule 7.3 defines forbidden solicitation:
(a) “Solicitation” or “solicit” denotes a communication initiated by or on behalf of a lawyer or law
firm that is directed to a specific person the lawyer knows or reasonably should know needs
legal services in a particular matter and that offers to provide, or reasonably can be understood
as offering to provide, legal services for that matter.
(b) A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment by live person-to-person contact when a
significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s or law firm’s pecuniary gain, unless
the contact is with a
(1) lawyer;
(2) person who has a family, close personal, or prior business or professional relationship with
the lawyer or law firm; or
(3) a person who routinely uses for business purposes the type of legal services offered by the
lawyer.

35. New Guidance from the ABA on Solicitation
(cont’d)
Model Rule 7.3 defines forbidden solicitation (cont’d):
(c) A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment even when not otherwise prohibited by
paragraph (b), if:
(1) the target of the solicitation has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by
the lawyer; or
(2) The solicitation involves coercion, duress, or harassment.

36. New Guidance from the ABA on Solicitation
(cont’d)
ABA Formal Ethics Opinion No. 501 (2022) offers some clarification on when a third party’s
encouragement of a potential client to retain a particular lawyer is solicitation.
● Rule 8.4 prohibits lawyers from having non-lawyers do for them what they are forbidden from
doing themselves.
● Model Rules 51 and 5.3 require managerial and supervising lawyers in a practice
organization to take reasonable steps to ensure that all lawyers and non-lawyers employed
or retained by the practice organization comply with the lawyers’ ethical obligations under the
Rules of Professional Conduct.

37. New Guidance from the ABA on Solicitation
(cont’d)
ABA Formal Ethics Opinion No. 501 (2022) offers some clarification on when a third party’s
encouragement of a potential client to retain a particular lawyer is solicitation. (cont’d)
● Thus, people who are retained or employed by a lawyer or practice organization can’t
engage in conduct that would be solicitation under Rule 7.3 if the lawyer did it herself.
● BUT “[r]ecommendations or referrals by third parties who are not employed, retained or
similarly associated with the lawyer and whose communications are not directed to make
specific statements to specific potential clients on behalf of a lawyer do not generally
constitute “solicitation” under Rule 7.3.”

38. The Great Staff Resignation – Practicing without an
Administrative Parachute
● Lawyers are ultimately responsible for the representation
● Model Rule 1.1’s requirement of competence extends to technology and other
administrative aspects of practice
● Model Rule 5.3(b) requires attorneys to properly supervise administrative staff (including
new staff and staff who are stepping in to fill other roles)
● Model Rule 5.1(b) requires attorneys to properly supervise junior attorneys who may also
be taking on additional responsibilities

39. About the Faculty
39

40. About The Faculty
Michelle Gershfeld - MGershfeldlaw@gmail.com
Michelle Gershfeld is a bankruptcy attorney, debt negotiator and personal financial life coach
who advises people who are in debt, or building wealth, by identifying and overcoming
obstacles that lie in their path to securing worry-free, financial wellness. Michelle’s private
practice, Law Offices of Michelle Gershfeld, provides services to clients in financial distress to
create a strategic, customized plan for each unique financial situation. Michelle defends
foreclosures and evictions when necessary, and will assist clients to move forward with
dignity, despite current hardships. Michelle also works with commercial clients to reorganize
outside of a formal bankruptcy filing, which effectively serves businesses at reduced costs.
40

41. About The Faculty
Bernie Burk - bernie.burk@bernieburk.com
Professor Bernard Burk joined the legal academy in 2010, after 25 years in private practice in
San Francisco. He is currently visiting at Penn State Law in University Park, PA. Starting in
July 2022, he’ll be visiting at Seattle University School of Law.
Aspen Publishing recently published his new textbook on legal ethics, entitled Ethical
Lawyering: A Guide for the Well-Intentioned (with Nancy Rapoport of the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas School of Law, and Veronica Finkelstein, Asst. U.S. Attorney for the E.D.
Pa. and adjunct at Drexel University School of Law and Rutgers-Camden). His scholarship
concerns the legal profession, legal ethics and professional conduct, and legal education. In
addition to his teaching and publishing, Prof. Burk engages in consulting and expert witness
work in the areas of legal ethics and professional conduct.
Prof. Burk attended Yale College and Stanford Law School.
41

42. About The Faculty
George Kuney - gkuney@utk.edu
George W. Kuney is a Lindsay Young Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Clayton Center for
Entrepreneurial Law at The University of Tennessee College of Law in Knoxville, Tennessee. He holds a J.D.
from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, an M.B.A. from The University of San Diego, and
a B.A. in Economics from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Before joining the UT faculty in 2000, he was
a partner in the Allen Matkins firm’s San Diego office. Previously he practiced with the Howard Rice and
Morrison & Foerster firms in his hometown of San Francisco, doing litigation and transactional work largely in the
context of business restructuring and insolvency. He teaches business law courses including Business
Associations, Contracts, Contract Drafting, Commercial Law, Consumer Bankruptcy, Debtor-Creditor, Mergers
and Acquisitions, Representing Enterprises, and Workouts and Reorganizations. Kuney has written a number of
books and articles and given presentations about business, contracts, and commercial law and insolvency-
related topics. He advises clients nationwide regarding bankruptcy, restructuring, reorganization, and related
subjects. He is admitted to the bar in California and Tennessee.
42

43. About The Faculty
Gerald Meyer - gmeyer@mololamken.com
Gerald Meyer’s practice focuses on complex business litigation, white collar criminal matters and
investigations, and appellate litigation. He has represented businesses, senior corporate officials, and
individuals in a broad array of subject matters, including securities litigation, class actions, antitrust law,
and constitutional law. He has tried cases to verdict and drafted and argued dispositive, discovery, and
evidentiary motions in trial courts across the country. He has argued appeals before the Seventh Circuit,
and has briefed appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States and numerous courts of appeals.
Before joining MoloLamken, Mr. Meyer was an associate with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP in Chicago. He has represented companies and individuals in a wide range of tax planning matters,
including mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, securities offerings, and issues involving tax-exempt
organizations. Mr. Meyer also served as a law clerk to Judge Robert R. Beezer of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and to Judge G. Steven Agee of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.
43

44. About The Faculty
Kathryn Nadro - knadro@sfgh.com
Kathryn (“Katie”) Nadro leads Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger’s Data Security and Privacy practice.
Katie advises clients on a diverse array of business matters, including data security and privacy
compliance, commercial and business disputes, and employment issues. Katie works with individuals and
businesses of all sizes to craft successful resolutions tailored to each individual matter.
Katie is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) and counsels clients on a variety of data
security and privacy issues, including breach response, policy drafting, program management, data
collection, vendor management, and compliance with ever-changing state, federal, and international
privacy law. Katie also has broad litigation experience representing companies and individuals in
contract, non-compete, discrimination, harassment, fiduciary duty, and trade secret litigation in state and
federal court. With a background as both in-house and outside counsel, Katie understands that business
objectives, time, and resources play an important role in reaching a favorable outcome for each client.
44

46. About Financial Poise
46
DailyDAC LLC, d/b/a Financial Poise™ provides
continuing education to attorneys, accountants,
business owners and executives, and investors. It’s
websites, webinars, and books provide Plain English,
entertaining, explanations about legal, financial, and
other subjects of interest to these audiences.
Visit us at www.financialpoise.com
Our free weekly newsletter, Financial Poise
Weekly, updates you on new articles published
on our website and Upcoming Webinars you
may be interested in.
To join our email list, please visit:
https://www.financialpoise.com/subscribe/