Fellow of Information Privacy (FIP)
Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM)
Certified Information Privacy Technologist (CIPT)
Certified Information Privacy Professional
– U.S. Private Sector (CIPP/US)
– U.S. Government (CIPP/G)
– Europe (CIPP/E)
– Canada (CIPP/C)
– Asia (CIPP/A)



U.S. District Court District of Arizona
U.S. District Court District of Colorado
U.S. District Court District of New Mexico
U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
U.S. Supreme Court



Civil RICO
Computer Crime 
Consumer Fraud
Data Privacy & Cybersecurity 
Defamation (Libel & Slander)
Fiduciary Duty
Invasion of Privacy
Trade Secrets Theft
Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices



B.S., Management, U.S. Air Force Academy
– Commandant’s List
Post-Baccalaureate Studies, Linguistics and Philosophy, University of Arizona
– Phi Beta Kappa
– Dean’s List with Distinction
J.D., University of Arizona
– Dean’s List
– William T. Birmingham Award
– Jenckes Cup Champion
– Richard Grand Damages Champion


Ed Hopkins

Mr. Hopkins focuses his practice on computer crime, cybersecurity, data privacy, defamation (libel and slander), invasion of privacy, and unfair or deceptive trade practices litigation and consulting.

He holds all seven certifications offered by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), including certifications in the laws of the United States (CIPP/US), European Union (CIPP/E), Canada (CIPP/C), and Asia (CIPP/A); United States governmental privacy laws (CIPP/G); IT privacy best practices (CIPT); and information privacy management (CIPM). The IAPP awarded Mr. Hopkins its Fellow of Information Privacy (FIP) designation in 2016.

He advises private companies on their privacy and information security programs, helping them analyze the data breach and litigation risks to which their privacy and information security practices expose them.

He consults on corporate espionage, data breach, information security negligence, and identity theft claims arising from conduct that 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 2511, or 2701 and state computer crime, data security, extortion, identity theft, and privacy laws prohibit.

He represents plaintiffs whose reputations, careers, brands, or goodwill were harmed due to false or misleading statements; private or corporate data or information were accessed without authorization; personality, publicity, or privacy rights were infringed or violated; or income or profits were diminished due to violations of computer crime or racketeering laws. He also represents private individual defendants and small business defendants who have been sued by other individuals or small businesses for defamation.

He represents plaintiffs who suffered economic damages due to consumer fraud, false advertising, fraudulent inducements, and unfair or deceptive trade practices.

He also represents plaintiffs who were harmed by violations of state or federal consumer protection, eavesdropping, wiretapping, or racketeering statutes that authorize private causes of action.


AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated (2015 – 2019)
Lead Counsel Rated – Civil Litigation (2015 – 2019)
Collaborative Bar Leadership Academy (CBLA) Class of 2015 Alumnus
Fellow, Colorado Bar Foundation (2015)
Colorado Bar Association Leadership Training (COBALT) Class of 2014 Alumnus
Sam Cary Bar Association President’s Award (2014)
Law Week Colorado Up and Coming Lawyers (2014)
Colorado Supreme Court Pro Bono Award (2012 – 2017)
EBONY Magazine Young Leader of the Future Award (2003)
Wing Staff Company Grade Officer of the Year (1997)


Arizona Bar Association
Colorado Bar Association
Delta Eta Boulé, Member
Downtown Denver Partnership, Member
International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP)
Sam Cary Bar Association (Judicial Committee Chairperson 2012 – 2015)
Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity, Inc. (2005 – present)


“Litigating Civil Claims for Computer Crimes and Torts,” Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, Denver, CO (January 2019)
“Safeguarding Your Clients’ Sensitive Information,” Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, Denver, CO (December 2017)
“Cybersecurity, Ransomware and Hacking: What to Do When You Get Breached,” Employment Law Conference, Colorado Bar Association, Vail, CO (October 2017)
“Law Firm Information Security and Data Breach Response,” Hanging Your Shingle, Colorado Bar Association, Denver, CO (August 2017)
“Evaluating Defamation Claims for Employment Law Plaintiffs,” Colorado Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association, Golden, CO (August 2016)
“Litigating Defamation in Colorado,” Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, Steamboat Springs, CO (August 2016)
“Removing Defamatory Online Reviews,” Sam Cary Bar Association, Denver, CO (October 2014)
“Starting a Law Firm: Making Smart Business Decisions Early,” Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, Steamboat Springs, CO (August 2012)


Lawson v. Stow, 2014 COA 26 | March 13, 2014
The Colorado Court of Appeals, affirming a Jefferson County trial court in part and reversing it in part, held that someone who makes a false report to a law enforcement agency or child protective services agency cannot be held liable by the person the false report was made against using a negligence per se theory. The Court also held that prefatory statements such as “I felt” do not convert provably false and derogatory statements of fact into constitutionally protected opinions for defamation claims. The trial court was ordered to review the trial evidence record to determine if one of the plaintiffs proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded evidence that the plaintiff did not threaten to kill him when the plaintiff posted the following statement on Facebook for all the plaintiff’s Facebook friends to see: “Re-post this if there is someone that is still alive because you don’t want to go to prison.”

Olive v. Schnurr, Douglas County District Court Case 12CV1892 | February 21, 2014
A seven-member Douglas County jury found that the defendant defamed the plaintiffs when she, without having a duty to do so, gave two news media companies false and derogatory, video-recorded statements that she saw the plaintiffs feeding their daughter margarita at a restaurant in a Denver Metro area mall. The news media used portions of the defendant’s video-recorded statements in broadcasts that reached hundreds of thousands of viewers and were later made available to the public via the Internet. The Jury’s defamation verdict was $180,000 for the plaintiffs.

Canfora v. Schaffer, 13CA0415 (Opinion Not Published) | February 6, 2014
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed a Jefferson County trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss that defamatory statements the defendant published at a public meeting were absolutely privileged. The Court of Appeals found that there was insufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that the defendant’s defamatory statements were published during quasi-judicial proceedings. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s legal ruling that the statements were subject to the absolute privilege for statements made during such proceedings.


• Economic damages for data breach victims who have not yet become identity theft victims
• Whether the black market value of their stolen private data affects the likelihood data breach victims will become identity theft victims
• Duties to reasonably safeguard consumers’ private data under the Federal Trade Commission Act and Lanham Act
• Actions or omissions that constitute improper conduct for intentional interference torts
• Modern reasonable expectations of privacy


“Invisible Capital: A Startup Law Firm’s Best Defense against Failure,” Trial Talk (June/July 2012).