Strombom brings creativity to her technology practice at WHD

Listen to this article

“Creativity” isn’t usually the first word people think of when talking about a legal career, but the opportunity to be creative in her thinking is what attracted Ariane Strombom to her role as an attorney at Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C.

“I always wanted to be an attorney growing up. The whole logic and reasoning aspect of it appealed to me. But once I got into law school, my eyes were really opened to the creativity involved,” she said. “There’s not always an easy or simple answer and you need to be creative in developing a solution.”

At WHD, Strombom is co-leader of the firm’s international transactions team and a member of the technology and emerging companies’ teams. She works with clients on a variety of issues, including corporate transactions and cross-border private and regulatory challenges posed by technology and new media.

Creativity definitely plays a role in her cases involving technology, Strombom said.

“You always need to be on your feet and thinking,” she said. “It’s constantly changing and there’s always new things to consider.”

Internet law is fascinating since it changes “literally day-by-day” and is all encompassing, including everything from domain names to social media, Strombom said.

“The key is to stay on top of the news and focusing on applying legal standards to these new situations,” she said.

Strombom is personally interested in technology — she has a background in website development and design — so being able to incorporate that passion into her law practice is a win-win.

“A lot of times it just comes down to helping clients understand what’s important and crucial to their business,” she said.

Wisconsin Law Journal: What makes your work important to you?
Ariane Strombom: As a technology lawyer, I am fortunate to have the opportunity to combine two things I love in my daily work — technology and the law. Technology is our future, and as it evolves I am passionate about working within — and helping to create — the evolving legal framework that results.

WLJ: Who is your hero in the legal field?
Strombom: The colleagues I work with and learn from daily. I am fortunate to have several exceptional mentors in my practice at WHD to whom I frequently look for guidance and support. There is always someone more established or more experienced in the legal field; my heroes are those that are great at what they do but take the time to pass on knowledge they have gained through the years.

WLJ: What do you do outside of work to deal with stress from the office?
Strombom: I love design in its many applications, but especially architecture and interior design. I favor contemporary buildings, but I love the juxtaposition of classic or vintage furniture with a modern home. This visual dichotomy appeals to a different part of my brain than my typical legal work. I also seek out opportunities to travel internationally — I lived and worked in Europe and the Middle East for several years before law school and I have international roots, so I sometimes feel most at home when I am somewhere new.

WLJ: What’s one thing many people get wrong about what you do?
Strombom: Many people assume that technology law is a form of intellectual property law. There is definite crossover, but there is more frequent overlap between corporate transactional law and the technology law that I practice. A significant portion of my work also involves mergers and acquisitions and other corporate transactions.

WLJ: What’s your favorite memory from law school?
Strombom: In my second year of law school I was honored to argue before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and 7th Circuit Judge Diane Sykes in the final round of Marquette Law School’s Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition. The opportunity represented almost a year of preparation and hard work that took me from learning how to make a moot court argument to answering questions on the fly from two exceptional role models.

WLJ: Is there a certain case that stands out to you?
Strombom: One of my favorite cases is a classic from the early days of the Internet, Panavision Int’l v. Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1296 (C.D. Cal. 1996), aff’d 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1999), in which an entrepreneur purchased Internet domain names similar to well-known companies’ trademarks and attempted to obtain payments from the trademark owners in exchange for a release of the domain names. Several companies, including Panavision, successfully sued the entrepreneur for trademark infringement instead of succumbing to the extortion attempt. This set the precedent for “cybersquatting,” which is still a common tactic used by Internet trolls today.