Photo of Jim Garland

Jim Garland

Jim Garland’s practice focuses on government investigations and enforcement matters, litigation, and cybersecurity. Recognized by Chambers USA as a leading practitioner in both the white collar and cybersecurity categories, Jim draws upon his experience as a former senior Justice Department official to advise clients on sensitive, multidimensional disputes and investigations, often with national security implications. He previously served as co-chair of Covington’s “Band 1”-ranked White Collar and Investigations Practice Group and currently is a member of the firm’s Management and Executive Committees.

Jim regularly represents corporate and individual clients in government investigations and enforcement actions. He has successfully handled matters involving allegations of economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, terrorism-financing, sanctions and export control violations, money laundering, foreign bribery, public corruption, fraud, and obstruction of justice. He has particular expertise advising clients in connection with investigations and disputes involving electronic surveillance and law enforcement access to digital evidence.

Jim has substantial experience litigating high-stakes, multidimensional disputes for clients across a range of industries, including companies in the high-tech, financial services, defense, transportation, media and entertainment, and life sciences sectors. Many of his civil representations have substantial cross-border dimensions or involve parallel government enforcement proceedings in multiple forums.

In conjunction with his investigations and litigation practice, Jim regularly assists clients with cybersecurity preparedness and incident-response matters. He helps clients in assessing security controls and in developing policies and procedures for the protection of sensitive corporate data. He also regularly assists companies in responding to significant cybersecurity incidents, including in connection with criminal and state-sponsored attacks targeting customer and employee data, financial information, and trade secrets.

From 2009 to 2010, Jim served as Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to Attorney General Eric Holder at the U.S. Department of Justice. In that role, he advised the Attorney General on a range of enforcement issues, with an emphasis on criminal, cybersecurity, and surveillance matters.

Contact:Read more about Jim GarlandEmail

On September 21, 2021, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued an “Updated Advisory on Potential Sanctions Risks for Facilitating Ransomware Payments” (the “Updated Advisory”).  The Updated Advisory updates and supersedes an earlier OFAC Advisory released on October 1, 2020, and is directed toward not only organizations victimized by ransomware attacks, but also financial institutions, cyber insurance firms, and forensic and incident-response firms that assist organizations victimized by ransomware attacks.

The Updated Advisory is largely consistent with the previous version released in October 2020, restating the U.S. government’s opposition to ransomware victims making payments to cyber threat actors and making clear OFAC’s commitment to bringing enforcement actions in connection with such payments when they constitute U.S. sanctions violations.  However, the Updated Advisory adds important new guidance on “the proactive steps companies can take to mitigate [sanctions enforcement] risks,” including implementing strong cybersecurity practices before an attack; and promptly reporting a ransomware attack to, and engaging in timely and ongoing cooperation with, law enforcement or other relevant agencies.  Taking these steps would constitute “mitigating factors” in any OFAC enforcement action resulting from sanctions violations in connection with ransomware payments.

In conjunction with the new Advisory, OFAC for the first time designated for sanctions a Russian cryptocurrency exchange, SUEX OTC, that OFAC alleges has been involved in facilitating numerous ransomware payments for malicious cyber actors.  As a result of this designation, U.S. persons (that is, all individual U.S. citizens and permanent residents, U.S.-incorporated entities and their branch offices, and anyone physically within the United States) are now prohibited from engaging in or facilitating virtually all transactions with or involving SUEX OTC.Continue Reading OFAC Issues Updated Guidance on Ransomware Payments

On June 24, 2021, Australian parliament passed legislation establishing a framework for its enforcement agencies to access certain electronic data held by companies outside of Australia for law enforcement and national security purposes.  The law paves the way for the establishment of a bilateral agreement with the United States under the U.S. Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act.

Similar to the function of the CLOUD Act, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 enables Australian enforcement authorities to compel companies covered by the statute to provide data, regardless of where the data is stored.  The legislation introduces international production orders, a form of legal process for compelling real-time interception of communications or the production of stored communications and telecommunications data, which can be served directly on communications providers in foreign countries with which Australia has an agreement.
Continue Reading Australia Passes Cross-Border Data Access Law, Creates a Pathway for CLOUD Act Bilateral Agreement

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) have introduced the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act, a bill that would require tech companies to assist law enforcement in executing search warrants that seek encrypted data.  The bill would apply to law enforcement efforts to obtain data at rest as well as data in motion.  It would also apply to both criminal and national security legal process.  This proposal comes in the wake of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s December 2019 hearing on encryption and lawful access to data.  According to its sponsors, the purpose of the bill is to “end[] the use of ‘warrant-proof’ encrypted technology . . . to conceal illicit behavior.”

The bill has three main provisions:
Continue Reading Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act Introduced

On October 3, 2019, the United States and United Kingdom signed an agreement on cross-border law enforcement demands for data from service providers (“Agreement”). The Agreement is the first bilateral agreement to be entered under the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act. It obligates each Party to remove barriers in their domestic laws so that U.S. and U.K. national security and law enforcement agencies may obtain certain electronic data directly from Communications Service Providers (“CSPs”) located in the jurisdiction of the other Party. The Agreement will go into effect 180 days after its transmission to Congress by the Attorney General, unless Congress disapproves by joint resolution.
Continue Reading U.S. and U.K. Sign CLOUD Act Agreement

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice released a white paper and FAQ on the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (“CLOUD”) Act, which was enacted in March 2018 and creates a new framework for government access to data held by technology companies worldwide.  The paper, titled “Promoting Public Safety, Privacy, and the Rule of Law Around the World: The Purpose and Impact of the CLOUD Act,” addresses the scope and purpose of the CLOUD Act and responds to 29 frequently asked questions about the Act.
Continue Reading Department of Justice Releases White Paper on CLOUD Act

In a decision that defines how the Fourth Amendment applies to information collected in the digital age, the Supreme Court today held that police must use a warrant to obtain from a cell phone company records that detail the location and movements of a cell phone user.  The opinion in Carpenter v. United States limits the application of the third-party doctrine, holding that a warrant is required when an individual “has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party.”

The 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasizes the sensitivity of cell phone location information, which the Court described as “deeply revealing” because of its “depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection.”  Given its nature, “the fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection,” the Court held.
Continue Reading Supreme Court’s Carpenter Decision Requires Warrant for Cell Phone Location Data

Two federal appellate courts are taking sharply different views on whether—and why—government agents must have some amount of suspicion to conduct forensic searches of electronic devices seized at the border.

The Fourth Circuit on May 9, 2018, held that government agents must have reasonable suspicion to conduct forensic searches of…
Continue Reading Federal Appeals Courts Split on Forensic Searches of Devices Seized at Border

On March 23, 2018, Congress passed, and President Trump signed into law, the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (“CLOUD”) Act, which creates a new framework for government access to data held by technology companies worldwide.

The CLOUD Act, enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, has two…
Continue Reading CLOUD Act Creates New Framework for Cross-Border Data Access

On January 27, 2014, the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence announced that the U.S. government will allow Internet companies and telecommunications providers to disclose more information about government demands for customer data in national security investigations.  The government’s new transparency policy addresses legal demands served under two distinct statutory authorities.  First, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), the government can apply to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) for orders compelling providers to disclose both the contents of their customers’ communications as well as non-content “metadata” relating to such communications.  Second, under the National Security Letter (“NSL”) statute, the FBI can compel companies to disclose certain non-content information about their customers.

Under the new policy announced on January 27, technology companies now have two options for reporting on the number of FISA orders and NSLs they receive:Continue Reading Justice Department Allows More Transparency on Government Demands for Customer Information in National Security Investigations