Michael Rosenblum, Co-Chair of Thompson Coburn LLP’s Cannabis Practice – Interview Series

The regulatory and legal hurdles facing the American cannabis industry are uniquely complex, particularly in New York, where local and state requirements often intersect in unprecedented ways. Navigating this landscape requires seasoned counsel with expertise across multiple levels of government and diverse fields of law. One such expert is Michael Rosenblum, Co-Chair of Thompson Coburn LLP’s Cannabis Practice.

To better understand how cannabis law compares with more traditional sectors, mycannabis.com spoke with Rosenblum about the shifting legal landscape and what it means for the industry’s future.

While attending NYU School of Law, what were the main fields of law that you studied? What were the courses and lessons that ended up becoming the most relevant towards your legal specialties?

At NYU Law, I focused mainly on corporate and transactional work, including courses in mergers and acquisitions, securities regulation, corporate finance, and business organizations. Those classes gave me a strong foundation in how deals are put together in the real world. More importantly, NYU emphasized learning how to think critically and solve problems, which has been incredibly valuable in practice. Understanding both the legal and business sides of a transaction has been central to how I approach my work.

What were your first roles as a lawyer after graduating? Particularly with Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, what were the most important lessons in corporate law you received from working with such a large firm?

After law school, I started my career at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in the corporate department and later worked in the legal department at Goldman Sachs (GS ). Both experiences provided strong training and early exposure to complex transactions. I learned how important it is to be precise in drafting, detail-oriented, and well-prepared, as well as how to manage deals with multiple stakeholders and moving parts. Those lessons continue to shape how I practice today.

What caught your professional attention about becoming an Associate at Thompson Coburn LLP? As a law firm, what was Thompson Coburn doing differently than other similar corporate law firms?

What initially drew me to Thompson Coburn was the firm’s entrepreneurial culture and collaborative approach. There was a real emphasis on building relationships and developing industry expertise, rather than staying in narrow practice lanes. I was also impressed by the depth of talent at the firm and the opportunity to work alongside outstanding lawyers who are not only highly skilled but also genuinely collegial and enjoyable to work with. In addition, the firm was ahead of the curve in recognizing the importance of emerging industries like cannabis and hemp, which aligned well with my interests and experience.

Besides cannabis, what are some other industries that you and Thompson Coburn have provided legal representation for? What are the strangest or largest differences in your duties as a lawyer, depending on which industry your client is in?

In addition to cannabis, I work with clients in consumer products, manufacturing, healthcare, technology, real estate, and private equity. The underlying legal work is often similar, but the regulatory environment can vary widely. Cannabis stands out because of the ongoing conflict between state and federal law. In more traditional industries, the rules are usually clearer, while in cannabis, you are constantly factoring in regulatory uncertainty.

What most attracted you to the in-house legal role with STIIIZY? Based on your legal experience, what did you know you could bring to this very important role?

What attracted me to the in-house legal role at STIIIZY was the opportunity to help build something special in a fast-growing industry. The company was expanding quickly, becoming the nation’s top-selling brand while operating in a highly regulated space. I knew I could help by bringing strategic legal planning, and my transactional background also allowed me to support financings, partnerships, and expansion efforts. I was also impressed by STIIIZY’s compliance team, which I believe is among the best in the industry.

While with STIIIZY, what were your regular duties as their General Counsel? Especially when it came to their expansions into other states, how did you oversee those processes as their General Counsel?

As General Counsel, I handled a wide range of responsibilities, including regulatory compliance, contracts, corporate governance, and strategic advice. For multi-state expansion, I worked closely with our internal licensing and compliance teams and local counsel to understand licensing rules, ownership limits, zoning requirements, and operational regulations. Having such a strong internal compliance team was a major advantage in navigating these processes.

While respecting the attorney-client privilege, of course, how would you say the legal needs of cannabis businesses differ from the legal needs of other businesses? How does your role as an attorney change based on whether your client is a cannabis business or not?

Cannabis companies operate under much heavier regulatory scrutiny than most other industries. Compliance and licensing are central to almost every major business decision. As a result, my role involves more regulatory strategy, risk management, and coordination with specialized advisors. There is also greater emphasis on contingency planning as the legal landscape continues to evolve.

As someone who’s represented cannabis companies, what are the most monumental ways that a federal cannabis rescheduling would change the operations of your cannabis clients? With sweeping changes such as 280E reform and medical research opportunities, what other large changes could there be for cannabis companies?

Federal rescheduling could be a major turning point for the industry.

“Ending the impact of Section 280E would significantly improve profitability and cash flow and expand access to traditional banking and institutional capital.”

Over time, this will likely lead to increased consolidation, as better-capitalized operators pursue acquisitions, and smaller players seek strategic partners. Rescheduling may also lead to more standardized regulations and broader participation from large national and international companies.

Simultaneously, how will your duties as their attorney change? Will such a huge federal reform, will this cause more confusion in the contradictions between current state versus federal cannabis law or more clarity?

In the short term, reform will likely create some uncertainty as federal and state systems adjust. That means more advisory work helping clients navigate new rules and transitions. Over time, however, increased access to traditional banking and institutional capital should drive more M&A activity and equity and debt financings, creating additional deal opportunities. Ultimately, reform should bring more clarity and allow companies to focus more on growth and strategy.

What are some existing concerns you have as an attorney regarding the rescheduling? With banking access and other federal reforms still unannounced, what problems lie ahead for cannabis companies?

One concern is that reform may happen slowly and in pieces. Issues like interstate commerce, banking access, and federal oversight will not be resolved right away. Increased federal involvement could also mean more compliance requirements. At the same time, competition will intensify as barriers to entry come down, making strong legal, financial, and operational discipline even more vital.

Thank you for joining us, Michael! For more information on Mr. Rosenblum and Thompson Coburn LLP’s services, please visit its website.