1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Joanna Rosen Forster

Joanna Rosen Forster

Partner
Partner
amZvcnN0ZXJAY3Jvd2VsbC5jb20=
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

Joanna Forster’s multifaceted background positions her to effectively manage conflicts across the legal spectrum and across the globe. In her prior roles as general counsel (representing both plaintiffs and defendants) and as government prosecutor/enforcer, Joanna handled nearly every type of matter, ranging from complex commercial and white collar matters in areas such as employment, intellectual property, securities and antitrust law, to internal investigations and corporate and M&A transactions. She views her role as both a conflict manager, dispensing advice to avoid adversarial action, and as a tech and business litigator, resolving disputes with her client’s business goals in mind.

Having served as the general counsel and compliance officer of a publicly traded ecommerce platform operating in over 60 countries, Joanna has an appreciation of strategic dispute resolution, investigations, and compliance from a general counsel’s perspective. By understanding how business leaders combine the input of in-house and outside counsel to make decisions, Joanna is able to provide her clients with decisive and efficient legal guidance.

Her practice includes litigating domestic and cross-border complex commercial disputes and advising technology and ecommerce companies on matters related to internet platforms, product launches, market campaigns, and new vertical lines of business, all while advising on foreign and domestic laws that regulate online content, physical products, and the companies that bring them to market. Drawing on her experience as the General Counsel of an online e-commerce marketplace, Joanna also regularly advises and counsels clients on California’s Proposition 65, from prevention and compliance to remediation. Joanna is well-versed in key regulations that impact ecommerce companies, including the EU’s Digital Services Act, the U.S. INFORM Act, and the proposed SHOP SAFE Act, as well as laws and regulations that govern online speech such as the Communications Decency Act, Section 230.

Prior to going in-house, Joanna was the deputy attorney general, Corporate Fraud Section of the California Department of Justice. In this capacity, she led large, complex civil matters alleging violations of California’s False Claims Act, Securities Law, Section 17200, Cartwright Act, and other deceptive business practices. She also maintained her own investigations and litigation docket.

Before joining the California Department of Justice, Joanna spent nearly a decade in private practice, where she focused on civil and criminal antitrust and commercial litigation. She also served as a law clerk for the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall in the U.S. District Court for the Central District Court of California.

Career & Education

    • California

      •    Deputy Attorney General, Corporate Fraud Section,
            California Department of Justice, 2015–2021

    • California

      •    Deputy Attorney General, Corporate Fraud Section,
            California Department of Justice, 2015–2021

    • General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, ContextLogic, Inc.
    • General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, ContextLogic, Inc.

    • University of California, Berkeley School of Law, J.D., 2006
    • University of California, Berkeley, B.A., Political Science, 2000
    • University of California, Berkeley School of Law, J.D., 2006
    • University of California, Berkeley, B.A., Political Science, 2000

    • California
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
    • California
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

    • Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, 2009
    • Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, 2009

    • Jewish Community Center of San Francisco: Board Member
    • Family House Inc.: Member, Family Services Committee
    • Jewish Community Center of San Francisco: Board Member
    • Family House Inc.: Member, Family Services Committee

    • English
    • Spanish
    • English
    • Spanish

Joanna's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.05.25

Proxy Advisors Glass Lewis and ISS Continue Fight Against State Attorney General Challenges to “Nonfinancial” advice in Challenge of Texas Law

Over the past several months, Missouri and Florida have gone on the offensive against the nation’s largest proxy advisors related to what they deemed “radical” agendas in providing proxy advice. In Texas, two of the largest proxy advisors, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis”), punched first, filing separate complaints in federal court against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in his official capacity, challenging the facial and as applied constitutionality of Senate Bill 2337 (“S.B. 2337” or “the Act”). The Act would require all proxy advisory services to disclose advice or recommendations that are “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders of a company.” Advice and/or a recommendation is defined as being “for nonfinancial reasons” when it “is wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors” including “an environmental, social, or governance (ESG) goal,” “diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI)”, or “a social credit or sustainability factor or score.” Both Glass Lewis and ISS seek declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of S.B. 2337 as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, they allege the Act violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against viewpoint discrimination, infringes upon their freedom of association, and is unconstitutionally vague. Glass Lewis also argues that the Act violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, and that it is preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”)....

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Served as external general counsel and chief compliance officer for ContextLogic Inc., a publicly traded company. In this capacity, Joanna advised on all aspects of the business and public company functions, and provided counsel to the Board of Directors.
  • Served as a member of the litigation team that secured over $1 billion in recovery for CalPERS and CalSTRs in connection with the rating, due diligence, and underwriting of residential mortgage backed securities following the financial crisis of 2008-2010, which received the Attorney General’s Award for Excellence in 2019.

Joanna's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.05.25

Proxy Advisors Glass Lewis and ISS Continue Fight Against State Attorney General Challenges to “Nonfinancial” advice in Challenge of Texas Law

Over the past several months, Missouri and Florida have gone on the offensive against the nation’s largest proxy advisors related to what they deemed “radical” agendas in providing proxy advice. In Texas, two of the largest proxy advisors, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis”), punched first, filing separate complaints in federal court against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in his official capacity, challenging the facial and as applied constitutionality of Senate Bill 2337 (“S.B. 2337” or “the Act”). The Act would require all proxy advisory services to disclose advice or recommendations that are “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders of a company.” Advice and/or a recommendation is defined as being “for nonfinancial reasons” when it “is wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors” including “an environmental, social, or governance (ESG) goal,” “diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI)”, or “a social credit or sustainability factor or score.” Both Glass Lewis and ISS seek declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of S.B. 2337 as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, they allege the Act violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against viewpoint discrimination, infringes upon their freedom of association, and is unconstitutionally vague. Glass Lewis also argues that the Act violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, and that it is preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”)....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.05.25

Proxy Advisors Glass Lewis and ISS Continue Fight Against State Attorney General Challenges to “Nonfinancial” advice in Challenge of Texas Law

Webinar | 07.30.25

H2 2025: What Retailers/E-Commerce Need to Know

Speaking Engagement | 07.30.25

"H2 2025: What Retailers/E-Commerce Need to Know," Crowell & Moring Webinar

Speaking Engagement | 07.29.25

"A Fireside Chat with Special Guests from the Connecticut and New York Offices of the Attorney General Featuring Connecticut AG William Tong," Crowell & Moring Seminar, New York, NY.

View All Insights

Practices

Industries

Joanna's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.05.25

Proxy Advisors Glass Lewis and ISS Continue Fight Against State Attorney General Challenges to “Nonfinancial” advice in Challenge of Texas Law

Over the past several months, Missouri and Florida have gone on the offensive against the nation’s largest proxy advisors related to what they deemed “radical” agendas in providing proxy advice. In Texas, two of the largest proxy advisors, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis”), punched first, filing separate complaints in federal court against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in his official capacity, challenging the facial and as applied constitutionality of Senate Bill 2337 (“S.B. 2337” or “the Act”). The Act would require all proxy advisory services to disclose advice or recommendations that are “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders of a company.” Advice and/or a recommendation is defined as being “for nonfinancial reasons” when it “is wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors” including “an environmental, social, or governance (ESG) goal,” “diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI)”, or “a social credit or sustainability factor or score.” Both Glass Lewis and ISS seek declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of S.B. 2337 as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, they allege the Act violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against viewpoint discrimination, infringes upon their freedom of association, and is unconstitutionally vague. Glass Lewis also argues that the Act violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, and that it is preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”)....

View All Insights