Erik Syverson is a nationally recognized cyber liability litigator. Erik has been litigating high profile cyber liability cases for over 13 years. Additionally, Erik consults with companies, government agencies, insurers and software vendors to implement data security programs and litigation risk mitigation. Scott Lesowitz is a former Assistant United States Attorney that graduated from Harvard Law School cum laude. Steven Gebelin is a graduate of the NYU School of Law and an alumnus of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
At Syverson, Lesowitz & Gebelin, LLP, Erik and his litigation team are committed to helping clients navigate the rapidly evolving areas of Internet, data security, business and intellectual property. Our law firm stands at the forefront of these developing legal areas as commercial activity and business disputes continue to migrate to the Internet.
In civil litigation, we handle cases involving data breaches, trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, defamation and general commercial litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants. We offer alternate fee arrangements for certain types of cases, however, most cases require a retainer deposit and our time is charged hourly. Our criminal practice focuses upon white collar cyber-crimes and defending actions brought by various government agencies including the Federal Trade Commission, S.E.C. and C.F.T.C.
Our experience, trial results and dedication to clients have established our status as a leading law firm for high stakes cyber liability litigation in California and the United States. Our client list includes video game companies, investment funds, retailers, digital media companies, hospitality services, insurers, entertainers, directors and officers, and internet marketing companies.A Highly Skilled and Efficient Approach
Our attorneys possess an elite level of training and experience. They hold degrees from the country's most prestigious law schools, have held positions in government as prosecutors and previously worked at the country's largest corporate law firms. Because of this approach, our clients obtain the benefit of large law firm expertise at boutique law firm pricing. We staff lean and do not employ inexperienced associates who require hand holding and training. Most cases are run by one partner and one senior associate.
We prepare for trial from day one and believe that a serious, well-designed litigation strategy is the key to extracting favorable settlements. We also believe in taking aggressive shots when opportunities present themselves. For example, if appropriate, we have been known to file summary judgments in response to lawsuits rather than churn cases by filing demurrers and Rule 12b6 motions which typically leads to an endless cycle of amendments. This aggressive approach has saved our defense clients millions of dollars over the years.
We do not shy away from the tough case, in fact, we are built for tough cases. Often, we are confronted with legal precedents and statutes drafted before the development of the internet and digital media. As such, we are trained to make creative legal arguments and often take cases of first impression. An example of this approach is our current representation of terrorism victims with large, unsatisfied judgments against the country of Iran. We are currently working to seize Iran’s internet assets in order to partially satisfy these judgments.Contact Our Los Angeles Internet and Intellectual Property Law Firm
To discuss your legal concerns, contact our Los Angeles office today to arrange a consultation.
Representation of six victims of terrorism who collectively possess judgments in excess of $500 million dollars against the countries of Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Erik obtained the dismissal of $400 million worth of fraud claims against his Australian real estate investor client in the Northern District of Illinois related to a failed venture involving the purchase of multiple shopping malls in the Midwest.
$2 million judgment for defamation on behalf of a corporate CEO against two individuals that mounted an online defamation and impersonation campaign against our client. Slaught v. Bellamar.