California’s New Privacy Law Specialization Is a Pragmatic Move

California’s new privacy law specialization has arrived at a time when privacy rules are multiplying, enforcement is tightening, and clients are seeking proven expertise.

The State Bar of California has collected public comments on proposed standards for certification and recertification in privacy law, laying the groundwork for credentialing lawyers who can navigate a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape. The board will assess if any further action is needed with respect to the proposal and, if not, will likely approve it and incorporate it into the Legal Specialization rules.

This move signals that privacy is no longer niche but a core competency in modern legal practice. As states, federal agencies, courts, and global regulators reshape the landscape, California’s framework may set the benchmark for professionalizing in privacy counsel.

California Requirements

The proposed standards adopt a practice-focused model that rewards documented, substantive work across privacy counseling, compliance, transactions, and disputes.

Applicants must show significant engagement in privacy practice over the past five years by earning points for tasks such as regulatory advice, drafting and negotiating privacy terms, cross-border transfer counseling, transaction diligence, and incident response.

Litigation and government investigations involving core privacy issues also qualify, with higher credit for matters requiring substantial hours or lead roles. Applicants must meet robust continuing education thresholds—45 hours before initial certification and 36 hours for recertification—ensuring specialists remain current on fast-changing doctrine and enforcement priorities.

The proposal offers an alternative to the written exam. Candidates who exceed practice thresholds by 150%, complete continuing education aligned with future exam specifications, and provide peer references may qualify without testing.

Although North Carolina and other states use the IAPP CIPP/US exam, California hasn’t indicated whether it will adopt or modify that model. The California Board of Legal Specialization’s approach suggests an emphasis on documented expertise and ongoing learning, regardless of whether a written exam becomes central.

Why Now?

California’s action meets the market where it is. Privacy has evolved from basic compliance to a strategic imperative shaping corporate decisions, product design, data monetization, global operations, and incident response.

Companies face overlapping regulations, rapid technology shifts, and increasingly sophisticated enforcement. Boards and investors now view data governance as enterprise risk, while consumers and employees demand real accountability. In this environment, a credential that demonstrates deep expertise delivers clear value to clients, courts, and counsel. The timing reflects a broader push for professionalization.

As privacy laws expand and regulators sharpen enforcement, clients want counsel who can operationalize compliance, build resilient governance, and litigate with fluency in both legal standards and technical architecture. A recognized credential signals readiness for that multidisciplinary challenge.

Implications for Practitioners

The privacy specialization will shape how lawyers build practices, firms staff cases, and clients choose counsel. Over the next several years, three dynamics likely will emerge:

• A premium on demonstrable, hands‑on experience will favor lawyers across the full privacy risk lifecycle—advisory, transactional, incident response, and disputes—over those limited to policy drafting or narrow compliance.
• The continuing education requirements will drive practitioners to stay current on enforcement theories, remedial frameworks, and evolving standards for privacy engineering, data minimization, and algorithmic accountability.
• Specialization may become a filter in competitive requests for proposal, especially where cross‑border transfers, sensitive data processing, or multijurisdictional incident management are implicated.

These dynamics demand closer collaboration with technical and operational stakeholders.

Counsel must translate legal requirements into actionable controls, oversee their testing and validation, and ensure incident responses meet legal and technical standards. The specialization’s task-based credit structure reflects this by rewarding work that bridges law, technology, and governance.

California Model’s Distinctions

California’s proposal departs from some existing models in states such as North Carolina and Tennessee by elevating documented practice and structured education while preserving flexibility through an exam alternative.

Whether California ultimately integrates an external certification, such as IAPP CIPP/US, will be closely watched. Alignment could streamline multi‑state recognition and establish a shared knowledge base, while a tailored exam would let California emphasize state-specific rules, emerging enforcement trends, and problem-solving beyond what multiple-choice tests capture.

The recertification framework is equally important. By conditioning renewal on sustained practice and education, the program guards against credential stagnation and keeps the specialty anchored to current risks—an essential safeguard in a domain where yesterday’s controls can be tomorrow’s exposure.

Practitioners also should look for how the final standards define qualifying work in emerging areas, including AI governance, edge processing, and biometric and geolocation constraints, as these likely will shape portfolios and team compositions.

Practical Takeaways

For practitioners, the message is clear: Build and document a diversified privacy portfolio encompassing compliance counseling, cross-border transfer guidance, and product design; lead incident response and breach notifications; manage privacy litigation and investigations; and drive post-order compliance programs.

Practitioners must prioritize continuing education that aligns with exam specifications, focusing on enforcement trends, remediation, and technical literacy. They also should build peer networks and secure references early, especially if pursuing the alternative pathway.

For clients and legal departments, the specialization provides a trusted benchmark for selecting outside counsel and assessing in-house capabilities. Organizations can use task categories as a checklist to ensure coverage across the privacy risk lifecycle.

As certification becomes standard, procurement and audit teams may expect lead counsel on major privacy matters to hold or pursue program recognition.

The Bottom Line

California’s privacy law specialization is a pragmatic response to the complexity of modern privacy risk. By emphasizing verifiable, practice‑grounded experience and sustained learning, it elevates the signal-to-noise ratio in a crowded market and sets a template that other jurisdictions may adopt or adapt.

Whether through an exam or an alternative pathway, the specialization aims to give clients a clearer way to gauge expertise and raise professional standards in a field that now permeates business and society. Lawyers must build the record, expand the toolkit, and prepare for a future where privacy specialization is expected, rather than exceptional.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Sharon Klein is a partner at Blank Rome and co-chair of its privacy, security, and data protection practice.

Victor Sandoval is a business litigation associate at Blank Rome.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines