Former US Attorney Chief Counsel on Fighting Cybercrime in New York's Southern District
As she moves to Sidley Austin after 15 years at the SDNY, Joan Loughnane shares what it was like working in an office where cases and responsibilities were seldom static.
August 17, 2018 at 08:00 AM
4 minute read
For Joan Loughnane, adapting to new roles was a key part of working in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
Over the past 15 years, Loughnane has served in a number positions, including acting chief of the complex frauds and cybercrime unit and, most recently, chief counsel to the U.S. Attorney. Loughnane also served briefly as acting Deputy U.S. Attorney following the 2017 firing of Preet Bharara.
To be sure, it wasn't just Loughnane's responsibilities that evolved during her time in the Southern District, but also the crimes she prosecuted. Working to combat cybercrimes, for instance, gave the seasoned prosecutor a front row seat to just how much cybercriminals have evolved their tactics over the past decade.
In the midst of her move to Sidley Austin as a partner in its White Collar Government Litigation & Investigations practice, Loughnane spoke with Legaltech News about her time at the Southern District and her work prosecuting cybercrimes.
LTN: Why did you choose move to the private sector?
JL: Well, I was very lucky to serve as a prosecutor for 15 years. But it's time for a new challenge. And I was attracted to Sidley because it has a unique combination of white collar, cybersecurity and regulatory enforcement practices and a collegial group of lawyers, including my former colleagues from the Southern District. So that was the perfect combination to return to private practice.
What do you hope to accomplish as a partner at Sidley?
I hope that I will be able to use what I learned during my time in government to help clients understand the questions that prosecutors are trying to answer at each critical stage during an investigation. For example, when making a decision about whether to bring a charge, or if they're charged, when deciding on an appropriate resolution in a case.
What do you believe corporate counsel gets wrong when it comes to responding to government investigations?
I think the most helpful things for corporate counsel handling a government investigation or an enforcement action are good lines of communications with the prosecutors and candor with the government. That candor gives counsel credibility, and that can be very important as the investigation progresses.
What were your responsibilities as chief counsel to the U.S. Attorney?
At the Southern District, the chief counsel reports directly to the U.S. Attorney and provides advice on legal and strategic issues whether they come in investigations, in pretrial litigation, or in trial. It could be any strategic issue that arises in any case across the office, whether it's civil or criminal. And there really is an endless variety of issues that come up in cases.
Has it been challenging moving into different roles while at the SDNY?
For me, serving in all those different roles was very fortunate. It was an opportunity because each role gave me a new perspective on the work and I learned an enormous amount. Chief counsel and U.S. deputy attorney are different tales. Deputy U.S. attorney oversees all aspects of the work done by all attorneys in the office, both on the criminal and civil side.
I would say that I worked with prosecutors there across the office, whether they were in securities unit, the terrorism unit, the cybercrime unit, the civil rights unit or the environmental unit on the civil side. So it really is a role that gave me the opportunity to work with prosecutors throughout the office and on issues in many different areas of the law.
Can you talk about the type of work you did as acting chief of the complex frauds and cybercrime unit?
So both as acting chief and during my time on the executive staff I worked with our cyber prosecutors, and they are incredibly talented prosecutors. I would say that work was particularly interesting because over the years cybercrime grew exponentially, and it changed.
At the beginning it was often the simple theft of valuable information, but by the end cybercrime was often committed in service of another crime altogether, whether that was securities fraud, extortion of something else, etc. So those changes—the variety and the increasing sophistication of cybercrime— made that work incredibly interesting and rewarding.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250