Photo of Michael Guggenheim

Michael Guggenheim

Subscribe to Michael Guggenheim's Posts

Michael Guggenheim is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Securities Litigation and White Collar Defense & Investigation groups. He focuses on a wide range of business disputes and regulatory and investigative matters, including enforcement actions brought by the SEC and state attorneys general. In connection with the historic restructuring of Puerto Rico’s debts, Michael is a core part of the team that advises the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico on a variety of issues related to Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, including advising the Oversight Board on statutory and regulatory developments.

Michael has experience with every stage of litigation, including taking depositions, drafting dispositive and discovery motions, coordinating discovery, preparing witnesses for testimony, and drafting appellate briefs. He has represented clients in both state and federal courts, as well as in arbitrations and government investigations.

Michael maintains an active pro bono practice, which has included litigating against the State of New York to invalidate regulations that would circumvent statutorily mandated protections for children placed in foster care. In addition, he spent a five-month secondment at the New York City Law Department in the Administrative Law and Regulatory Litigation Division.

Michael earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his B.A., summa cum laude, from Rutgers University. While in law school, Michael worked for the Litigation Department of the San Francisco City Attorney, was a teaching assistant for the Harvard Law School Negotiation Workshop, and litigated election law cases with Common Cause. He also served as the Executive Managing Editor of the Harvard Law & Policy Review and coached the Boston College mock trial team. In his free time, Michael enjoys practicing yoga.

Contact:Read more about Michael Guggenheim

Increasing oversight of tech companies, particularly in the realm of consumer privacy, has been a rare example of bipartisan agreement. Despite data privacy being a growing concern for consumers, however, there has been relatively little federal policymaking. To counteract this lack of action, some states have stepped in to fill this void—and have enacted policies that could have large impacts on how businesses operate. The rapid rate at which these laws are being enacted – eleven have been enacted– indicates states are taking an increasingly protective view of consumers’ data privacy. Businesses need to be prepared to comply with these new mandates, or risk costly enforcement measures.

Last month, the Advisory Committee on Evidence of the Judicial Conference of the United States’ Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure voted to unanimously to recommend certain amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony.  This vote signals imminent changes that could significantly affect federal practitioners’ requirements to demonstrate their experts’ reliability.

New York’s unique approach to evidentiary procedure – and specifically, its rules governing admissions by a party opponent’s agent – have frustrated litigators for years. Recent changes to New York’s rules on civil procedure, however, have brought the state’s approach to hearsay more in line with the standard set by the Federal Rules of Evidence. These changes could significantly impact future litigation, especially disputes centered on workplace conduct.