http://www.judged.com/jdfirmrssfeed_mo.php Judged Law Firm en-us (C) 2006 Judged. All rights reserved. contact@judged.com(Judged) contact@judged.com Tue, 09 Jun 2026 09:55:59 -0500 Law Firms http://www.judged.com/jdfirmrssfeed_mo.php 60 http://www.judged.com/images/xml_rss_feed.gif http://www.judged.com/jdfirmrssfeed_mo.php Address : 4600 Madison AvenueSuite 711 ,, Phone : 816-531-1888, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=650 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=650&page=38 Address : 7700 Bonhomme AvenueSuite 400 ,, Phone : 314-726-7500, City : Clayton http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1009 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1009&page=2 Address : 120 South Central AvenueSuite 700 ,, Phone : 314-863-6311, City : Clayton http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=272 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=272&page=3 Address : 1010 Walnut StreetSuite 500, Phone : 816-421-2500, City : Kansas City Chairman John K. Pruellage Praises the Firm's Association with the International Lawyers Network in the National Law Journal. Chairman John K. Pruellage Praises the Firm's Association with the International Lawyers Network in the National Law Journal. Jacob W. Reby has written an article Tower Crane License Agreements (With Form). The article was published in the July 2007 edition of The Practical Real Estate Lawyer. Jacob W. Reby has written an article Tower Crane License Agreements (With Form). The article was published in the July 2007 edition of The Practical Real Estate Lawyer. Stan C. Johnston, member and chairperson of the Kansas City Business Tax and Estate Planning Department authored the article "Buying or Selling a Business: a Legal Primer" which is in the Of Counsel section of July 2007 issue of Ingram's - Kansas City's Business Magazine. Stan C. Johnston, member and chairperson of the Kansas City Business Tax and Estate Planning Department authored the article "Buying or Selling a Business: a Legal Primer" which is in the Of Counsel section of July 2007 issue of Ingram's - Kansas City's Business Magazine. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1431 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1431&page=7 Address : 700 East Capitol AvenueP.O. Box 1438, Phone : 573-634-3422, City : Jefferson City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=40 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=40&page=6 Address : 4520 Main StreetSuite 1100 ,, Phone : 816-460-2400, City : Kansas City National law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP announced today that Miguel Santana, former chief of staff to Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, has joined the firm as a managing director in its Public Law & Policy Strategies Group. Santana, a well known policy strategist in California, brings more than 15 years of experience with legislative, political, and community issues to the growing bipartisan public policy management practice at Sonnenschein. He will be resident in the firm's Los Angeles office. "Miguel is a talented strategist who is able to navigate the intricacies of government and politics to produce results," notes Mike McNamara, national chair of Sonnenschein's Public Law & Policy Strategies Practice Group. "Having been on the inside of the nation's largest county, he brings with him a vast knowledge of Southern California politics. He will be an incredible asset to our clients and adds to the increasing scope and growth of our group." "Sonnenschein's Public Law & Policy Strategies Group is an influential team of professionals with a national presence," says Santana. "It is one of the few groups that offers both legal and political services to a broad list of clients on the local and national levels." Santana's responsibilities with Supervisor Molina included strategic management, legislative and political advocacy, and media relations. He has often been quoted in newspaper stories and interviewed on local and national network news. The policy areas in which he has significant expertise include: budgeting, health, public works, community and economic development, urban planning, housing, public safety, immigration, restructuring of county governance, social services, consumer protection, and human resources. Santana served as Molina's key point-of-contact for county advocates, national and state Latino leaders of nonprofit organizations, advocacy groups, think tanks, and coalitions. He also served as a Molina spokesperson and managed many of her political and policy initiatives, including those with the Democratic National Committee during her tenure as vice chair from 1996 through 2004, as well as local, state, and national campaigns. "Miguel Santana is someone I have known for many years, and for a long time I have wanted to find a way to work with him in the public policy arena," says Darry Sragow, a former political strategist and attorney who heads Sonnenschein's West Coast Public Law practice. "Miguel's presence at Sonnenschein will be great for our clients, great for our firm, and it is a wonderful opportunity for Miguel to expand his professional horizons. We are thrilled that he has chosen to join our growing practice." Santana is active in the Los Angeles community and has been involved in many local and national organizations, including the National Immigration Forum, American Society of Public Administrators, Immaculate Heart College Center, and Los Angeles Plaza de Cultura y Arte. Santana received a B.A. degree in Latin American studies and sociology from Whittier College and an M.P.A. degree from the Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University. He co-authored "Myth or Reality: Is the Latino Vote Up for Grabs?" published in the John F. Kennedy Review in 2005. Santana will be teaching a course on leadership at the University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development in the Executive Master of Leadership Program this fall. Prior to working with Supervisor Molina, Santana was Community Affairs Assistant to Antonia Hernandez, the former President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). National law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP announced today that Miguel Santana, former chief of staff to Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, has joined the firm as a managing director in its Public Law & Policy Strategies Group. Santana, a well known policy strategist in California, brings more than 15 years of experience with legislative, political, and community issues to the growing bipartisan public policy management practice at Sonnenschein. He will be resident in the firm's Los Angeles office. "Miguel is a talented strategist who is able to navigate the intricacies of government and politics to produce results," notes Mike McNamara, national chair of Sonnenschein's Public Law & Policy Strategies Practice Group. "Having been on the inside of the nation's largest county, he brings with him a vast knowledge of Southern California politics. He will be an incredible asset to our clients and adds to the increasing scope and growth of our group." "Sonnenschein's Public Law & Policy Strategies Group is an influential team of professionals with a national presence," says Santana. "It is one of the few groups that offers both legal and political services to a broad list of clients on the local and national levels." Santana's responsibilities with Supervisor Molina included strategic management, legislative and political advocacy, and media relations. He has often been quoted in newspaper stories and interviewed on local and national network news. The policy areas in which he has significant expertise include: budgeting, health, public works, community and economic development, urban planning, housing, public safety, immigration, restructuring of county governance, social services, consumer protection, and human resources. Santana served as Molina's key point-of-contact for county advocates, national and state Latino leaders of nonprofit organizations, advocacy groups, think tanks, and coalitions. He also served as a Molina spokesperson and managed many of her political and policy initiatives, including those with the Democratic National Committee during her tenure as vice chair from 1996 through 2004, as well as local, state, and national campaigns. "Miguel Santana is someone I have known for many years, and for a long time I have wanted to find a way to work with him in the public policy arena," says Darry Sragow, a former political strategist and attorney who heads Sonnenschein's West Coast Public Law practice. "Miguel's presence at Sonnenschein will be great for our clients, great for our firm, and it is a wonderful opportunity for Miguel to expand his professional horizons. We are thrilled that he has chosen to join our growing practice." Santana is active in the Los Angeles community and has been involved in many local and national organizations, including the National Immigration Forum, American Society of Public Administrators, Immaculate Heart College Center, and Los Angeles Plaza de Cultura y Arte. Santana received a B.A. degree in Latin American studies and sociology from Whittier College and an M.P.A. degree from the Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University. He co-authored "Myth or Reality: Is the Latino Vote Up for Grabs?" published in the John F. Kennedy Review in 2005. Santana will be teaching a course on leadership at the University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development in the Executive Master of Leadership Program this fall. Prior to working with Supervisor Molina, Santana was Community Affairs Assistant to Antonia Hernandez, the former President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP today announced that William M. Gantz has joined the national law firm as a partner in its Litigation Practice Group. Gantz, whose practice focuses on commercial litigation matters, will reside in Sonnenschein's Chicago office. "Bill's experience in the areas of Internet gaming, intellectual property and general commercial litigation matters, as well as his abilities as a trial lawyer, will help solidify Sonnenschein as the premier firm for litigation needs," said Michael H. Barr, national chair of Sonnenschein's Litigation Practice Group. "His energy and entrepreneurial spirit make him a perfect addition to the firm." Gantz has 17 years of experience in trial and appellate practice. He has managed a broad array of business disputes for manufacturing, technology, gaming, transportation and healthcare clients. During his career, he has been the lead attorney many times in bench and jury trials in cases involving shareholder disputes, contractual disputes, company valuation, general commercial litigation, healthcare and torts. Gantz has extensive experience in class action and mass torts, and he regularly provides risk management counseling to business clients. Gantz also has argued cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for both the Seventh and Ninth Circuits. "Sonnenschein's litigation group is revered for its many accomplishments," noted Gantz. "The opportunities available here will enable me to continue growing my practice, and I am delighted to be joining the firm. This is an exceptional firm with exceptional people." Gantz received a J.D. degree from Ohio State University College of Law and an A.B. degree from the University of Chicago. He has taught and lectured at legal seminars throughout the United States, and he currently serves as co-chair of the Subcommittee on Internet and Mobile Gaming of the American Bar Association's Business Law Section Gaming Law Committee. Gantz joins Sonnenschein from DLA Piper US LLP. Sonnenschein's litigation practice includes hundreds of litigators with vast experience in all major industries and all facets of litigation, from negotiating pre-trial settlements to conducting trials to handling post-trial appeals. Its attorneys have a long track record of successfully acting as lead trial counsel in federal and state bench and jury trials throughout the United States, as well as coordinating and managing complex class actions and mass tort cases across the country. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP today announced that William M. Gantz has joined the national law firm as a partner in its Litigation Practice Group. Gantz, whose practice focuses on commercial litigation matters, will reside in Sonnenschein's Chicago office. "Bill's experience in the areas of Internet gaming, intellectual property and general commercial litigation matters, as well as his abilities as a trial lawyer, will help solidify Sonnenschein as the premier firm for litigation needs," said Michael H. Barr, national chair of Sonnenschein's Litigation Practice Group. "His energy and entrepreneurial spirit make him a perfect addition to the firm." Gantz has 17 years of experience in trial and appellate practice. He has managed a broad array of business disputes for manufacturing, technology, gaming, transportation and healthcare clients. During his career, he has been the lead attorney many times in bench and jury trials in cases involving shareholder disputes, contractual disputes, company valuation, general commercial litigation, healthcare and torts. Gantz has extensive experience in class action and mass torts, and he regularly provides risk management counseling to business clients. Gantz also has argued cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for both the Seventh and Ninth Circuits. "Sonnenschein's litigation group is revered for its many accomplishments," noted Gantz. "The opportunities available here will enable me to continue growing my practice, and I am delighted to be joining the firm. This is an exceptional firm with exceptional people." Gantz received a J.D. degree from Ohio State University College of Law and an A.B. degree from the University of Chicago. He has taught and lectured at legal seminars throughout the United States, and he currently serves as co-chair of the Subcommittee on Internet and Mobile Gaming of the American Bar Association's Business Law Section Gaming Law Committee. Gantz joins Sonnenschein from DLA Piper US LLP. Sonnenschein's litigation practice includes hundreds of litigators with vast experience in all major industries and all facets of litigation, from negotiating pre-trial settlements to conducting trials to handling post-trial appeals. Its attorneys have a long track record of successfully acting as lead trial counsel in federal and state bench and jury trials throughout the United States, as well as coordinating and managing complex class actions and mass tort cases across the country. National law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP announced today that Dr. Robert E. Hanson, whose legal practice focuses on intellectual property issues surrounding agricultural biotechnology and the life sciences, has joined the firm as a partner in the Dallas office. Hanson comes to Sonnenschein from Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. and brings with him Dr. Ron Laby, a patent agent and scientific advisor who has written and prosecuted patent applications in the areas of molecular genetics, agricultural biotechnology and medical devices. Hanson has more than 10 years experience in the field handling ag-biotech patents for Monsanto and other clients. He has successfully argued multiple appeals before the U.S. Patent Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that substantially changed examination policy in the areas of plant varieties and plant gene regulatory elements. At Sonnenschein, Hanson's team provides counsel for Monsanto and others on ag-biotech patent issues, as well as all aspects of strategic patent portfolio management, including patent prosecution and appeals, counseling, invalidity, non-infringement and due diligence opinions, and patent interferences in the plant genetics and animal health areas, licensing and litigation-related matters. "Rob is a talented and nationally-recognized 'rising star' in intellectual property circles with a distinct specialization," notes Carol Anne Been, national chair of Sonnenschein's Intellectual Property & Technology Practice Group. "Rob's and Ron's abilities to navigate the legal and biological complexities associated with agricultural biotechnology patents is an immense asset to our clients and adds to the increasing scope and growth of our group. Furthermore, Rob's 10 years working with Monsanto as an attorney and patent agent is a testament to his ability to deliver quality client service in this complex area." "Sonnenschein is a dynamic firm with an amazing group of professionals. Their commitment to client service and a culture of team work is incredible," says Hanson. "I am proud to be the newest member of Sonnenschein's esteemed intellectual property practice and look forward to working with such an elite roster of clients." The addition of Hanson's practice further establishes Sonnenschein as a premier provider of legal services in the biotechnology field. It is one of only a few law firms with a strong concentration in agricultural biotechnology issues nationwide, including robust practices in St. Louis, San Francisco, and now Dallas. Agricultural biology is a rapidly growing technology specialization and Hanson's and Laby's practices give Sonnenschein unparalleled strength in the area of agricultural biotechnology, a rapidly growing technology specialization spanning plant genomics, plant pathology, animal husbandry, plant-based pharmaceutics, and bioenergy and environmentally friendly "clean tech" disciplines. Hanson has frequently spoken and published numerous articles on plant biotechnology and related patent issues, including contributions to scientific publications such as Genome, American Journal of Botany, Genome Research and Chromosome Research. He received B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Genetics from Texas A&M University and a J.D., with honors, from the University of Texas School of Law, where he was designated an Order of the Coif member. Laby earned a B.A. degree in biology from Haverford College, a M.S. in Plant Pathology from Cornell University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular Plant Pathology with minors in Genetics and Microbiology, also from Cornell. Hanson and Laby join a growing life sciences practice at Sonnenschein which also recently added highly regarded biotech attorney Dale C. Hunt and five others in San Francisco and St. Louis with extensive backgrounds in the areas of patent law and biotechnology. National law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP announced today that Dr. Robert E. Hanson, whose legal practice focuses on intellectual property issues surrounding agricultural biotechnology and the life sciences, has joined the firm as a partner in the Dallas office. Hanson comes to Sonnenschein from Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. and brings with him Dr. Ron Laby, a patent agent and scientific advisor who has written and prosecuted patent applications in the areas of molecular genetics, agricultural biotechnology and medical devices. Hanson has more than 10 years experience in the field handling ag-biotech patents for Monsanto and other clients. He has successfully argued multiple appeals before the U.S. Patent Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that substantially changed examination policy in the areas of plant varieties and plant gene regulatory elements. At Sonnenschein, Hanson's team provides counsel for Monsanto and others on ag-biotech patent issues, as well as all aspects of strategic patent portfolio management, including patent prosecution and appeals, counseling, invalidity, non-infringement and due diligence opinions, and patent interferences in the plant genetics and animal health areas, licensing and litigation-related matters. "Rob is a talented and nationally-recognized 'rising star' in intellectual property circles with a distinct specialization," notes Carol Anne Been, national chair of Sonnenschein's Intellectual Property & Technology Practice Group. "Rob's and Ron's abilities to navigate the legal and biological complexities associated with agricultural biotechnology patents is an immense asset to our clients and adds to the increasing scope and growth of our group. Furthermore, Rob's 10 years working with Monsanto as an attorney and patent agent is a testament to his ability to deliver quality client service in this complex area." "Sonnenschein is a dynamic firm with an amazing group of professionals. Their commitment to client service and a culture of team work is incredible," says Hanson. "I am proud to be the newest member of Sonnenschein's esteemed intellectual property practice and look forward to working with such an elite roster of clients." The addition of Hanson's practice further establishes Sonnenschein as a premier provider of legal services in the biotechnology field. It is one of only a few law firms with a strong concentration in agricultural biotechnology issues nationwide, including robust practices in St. Louis, San Francisco, and now Dallas. Agricultural biology is a rapidly growing technology specialization and Hanson's and Laby's practices give Sonnenschein unparalleled strength in the area of agricultural biotechnology, a rapidly growing technology specialization spanning plant genomics, plant pathology, animal husbandry, plant-based pharmaceutics, and bioenergy and environmentally friendly "clean tech" disciplines. Hanson has frequently spoken and published numerous articles on plant biotechnology and related patent issues, including contributions to scientific publications such as Genome, American Journal of Botany, Genome Research and Chromosome Research. He received B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Genetics from Texas A&M University and a J.D., with honors, from the University of Texas School of Law, where he was designated an Order of the Coif member. Laby earned a B.A. degree in biology from Haverford College, a M.S. in Plant Pathology from Cornell University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular Plant Pathology with minors in Genetics and Microbiology, also from Cornell. Hanson and Laby join a growing life sciences practice at Sonnenschein which also recently added highly regarded biotech attorney Dale C. Hunt and five others in San Francisco and St. Louis with extensive backgrounds in the areas of patent law and biotechnology. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2228 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2228&page=8 Address : 4600 Madison AvenueSuite 210 ,, Phone : 816-531-7200, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=138 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=138&page=9 Address : 4801 Main StreetSuite 1000 ,, Phone : 816-983-8000, City : Kansas City The Federal Circuit recently made it more difficult for patent owners to recover enhanced damages in patent infringement cases. Unique to patent law, enhanced damages, sometimes referred to as "treble damages" (because a court has discretion to award up to three times the amount of actual damages), are akin to punitive damages awardable in other civil matters. Under the new standard, a patent infringement plaintiff will need to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants actions of infringement were "objectively reckless" before a jury can award enhanced damages. A reckless infringer is one who goes forward with its alleged acts of infringement in the face of an "unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known." In August, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued the, In re Seagate decision. Seagate overturned 24 years of legal precedent by expressly overruling the 1983 decision of Underwater Devices which had set a lower threshold for willful infringement, more akin to negligence. As noted above, the old "negligence" standard has been replaced with the higher standard of "objective recklessness." Combined with another prior en banc decision, Knorr-Bremse, the Federal Circuit has raised the bar of establishing willful infringement -- the pathway to enhanced damages. In prior practice, it was perceived that a sure-fire way for a defendant in a patent infringement suit to avoid a willfulness finding was to obtain a competent opinion from patent counsel that the patents at issue were either invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by the defendants acts. Reliance on such opinions, however, triggers a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, at least as it relates to the subject of the opinions relied upon. Questions remained as to whether the waiver extended to communications between trial counsel and the client. Seagate answered that question, holding that waiver does not extend to trial counsel. The Federal Circuit recently made it more difficult for patent owners to recover enhanced damages in patent infringement cases. Unique to patent law, enhanced damages, sometimes referred to as "treble damages" (because a court has discretion to award up to three times the amount of actual damages), are akin to punitive damages awardable in other civil matters. Under the new standard, a patent infringement plaintiff will need to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants actions of infringement were "objectively reckless" before a jury can award enhanced damages. A reckless infringer is one who goes forward with its alleged acts of infringement in the face of an "unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known." In August, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued the, In re Seagate decision. Seagate overturned 24 years of legal precedent by expressly overruling the 1983 decision of Underwater Devices which had set a lower threshold for willful infringement, more akin to negligence. As noted above, the old "negligence" standard has been replaced with the higher standard of "objective recklessness." Combined with another prior en banc decision, Knorr-Bremse, the Federal Circuit has raised the bar of establishing willful infringement -- the pathway to enhanced damages. In prior practice, it was perceived that a sure-fire way for a defendant in a patent infringement suit to avoid a willfulness finding was to obtain a competent opinion from patent counsel that the patents at issue were either invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by the defendants acts. Reliance on such opinions, however, triggers a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, at least as it relates to the subject of the opinions relied upon. Questions remained as to whether the waiver extended to communications between trial counsel and the client. Seagate answered that question, holding that waiver does not extend to trial counsel. Blackwell Sanders Partners Kimberly Jones and Kirstin Pace Salzman were named as two of Missouri†s ‽rising stars” and were recognized in recent issue of Missouri Lawyers Weekly. The 10th annual ‽Up and Coming Lawyers” issue honored 35 Missouri attorneys. There were a record number of nominations this year, which a selection committee read through in search of those attorneys who ‽do something extra to distinguish them as rising bar members.” Each honoree shows exemplary dedication to the practice of law and a commitment to making their communities better places to live. Kim Jones has become an authority on class and collective actions; her successful national practice has led her to spend substantial time in California in recent years. She has been successful where California attorneys have found defending these actions to be difficult. In addition to her successful defense of companies, she is also a superb trainer, proactively working with clients to show them how to follow the law and reduce or eliminate the risks associated with lawsuits and trials. Kim†s commitment to fairness extends beyond her representation of clients. Kim is the chair of Blackwell Sanders†Diversity Committee. Kim is a board member of The Central Exchange, Kansas City's premier organization providing leadership development opportunities for women. Kim also sits on the Steering Committee of the Human Rights Campaign of Kansas City. Kirstin Salzman has distinguished herself as a leading transactional and securities attorney and has earned the respect and admiration of clients and adverse parties alike. Her breadth and depth of securities and public companies experience is a unique asset for someone her age. Kirstin counts among her clients YRC Worldwide, NovaStar Financial and Tortoise Capital Advisors. In her work for Tortoise, Kirstin has worked on several registration statements to register the offering of hundreds of millions of dollars of securities. Kirstin also regularly gives legal guidance on compliance issues to public companies, and she advises the independent members of the board of directors of the UMB Scout funds. In her transaction experience, Kirstin has impressed both sides of the table. In one instance, she represented the seller in the sale of a business. At the end of the transaction, the buyer praised Kirstin†s skills and asked to work with her in the future. She had the opportunity to represent that buyer last year. After the transaction, the representative of that buyer sent an unsolicited email to firm leadership, praising Kirstin†s skills. Both Kim & Kirstin helped to found True North, Blackwell Sanders†Women†s Initiative. True North helps Blackwell Sanders†female attorneys form stronger relationships and participate in leadership development activities with each other and with their female clients. Blackwell Sanders Partners Kimberly Jones and Kirstin Pace Salzman were named as two of Missouri†s ‽rising stars” and were recognized in recent issue of Missouri Lawyers Weekly. The 10th annual ‽Up and Coming Lawyers” issue honored 35 Missouri attorneys. There were a record number of nominations this year, which a selection committee read through in search of those attorneys who ‽do something extra to distinguish them as rising bar members.” Each honoree shows exemplary dedication to the practice of law and a commitment to making their communities better places to live. Kim Jones has become an authority on class and collective actions; her successful national practice has led her to spend substantial time in California in recent years. She has been successful where California attorneys have found defending these actions to be difficult. In addition to her successful defense of companies, she is also a superb trainer, proactively working with clients to show them how to follow the law and reduce or eliminate the risks associated with lawsuits and trials. Kim†s commitment to fairness extends beyond her representation of clients. Kim is the chair of Blackwell Sanders†Diversity Committee. Kim is a board member of The Central Exchange, Kansas City's premier organization providing leadership development opportunities for women. Kim also sits on the Steering Committee of the Human Rights Campaign of Kansas City. Kirstin Salzman has distinguished herself as a leading transactional and securities attorney and has earned the respect and admiration of clients and adverse parties alike. Her breadth and depth of securities and public companies experience is a unique asset for someone her age. Kirstin counts among her clients YRC Worldwide, NovaStar Financial and Tortoise Capital Advisors. In her work for Tortoise, Kirstin has worked on several registration statements to register the offering of hundreds of millions of dollars of securities. Kirstin also regularly gives legal guidance on compliance issues to public companies, and she advises the independent members of the board of directors of the UMB Scout funds. In her transaction experience, Kirstin has impressed both sides of the table. In one instance, she represented the seller in the sale of a business. At the end of the transaction, the buyer praised Kirstin†s skills and asked to work with her in the future. She had the opportunity to represent that buyer last year. After the transaction, the representative of that buyer sent an unsolicited email to firm leadership, praising Kirstin†s skills. Both Kim & Kirstin helped to found True North, Blackwell Sanders†Women†s Initiative. True North helps Blackwell Sanders†female attorneys form stronger relationships and participate in leadership development activities with each other and with their female clients. Blackwell Sanders Partners Kimberly Jones and Kirstin Pace Salzman were named as two of Missouri†s ‽rising stars” and were recognized in recent issue of Missouri Lawyers Weekly. The 10th annual ‽Up and Coming Lawyers” issue honored 35 Missouri attorneys. There were a record number of nominations this year, which a selection committee read through in search of those attorneys who ‽do something extra to distinguish them as rising bar members.” Each honoree shows exemplary dedication to the practice of law and a commitment to making their communities better places to live. Kim Jones has become an authority on class and collective actions; her successful national practice has led her to spend substantial time in California in recent years. She has been successful where California attorneys have found defending these actions to be difficult. In addition to her successful defense of companies, she is also a superb trainer, proactively working with clients to show them how to follow the law and reduce or eliminate the risks associated with lawsuits and trials. Kim†s commitment to fairness extends beyond her representation of clients. Kim is the chair of Blackwell Sanders†Diversity Committee. Kim is a board member of The Central Exchange, Kansas City's premier organization providing leadership development opportunities for women. Kim also sits on the Steering Committee of the Human Rights Campaign of Kansas City. Kirstin Salzman has distinguished herself as a leading transactional and securities attorney and has earned the respect and admiration of clients and adverse parties alike. Her breadth and depth of securities and public companies experience is a unique asset for someone her age. Kirstin counts among her clients YRC Worldwide, NovaStar Financial and Tortoise Capital Advisors. In her work for Tortoise, Kirstin has worked on several registration statements to register the offering of hundreds of millions of dollars of securities. Kirstin also regularly gives legal guidance on compliance issues to public companies, and she advises the independent members of the board of directors of the UMB Scout funds. In her transaction experience, Kirstin has impressed both sides of the table. In one instance, she represented the seller in the sale of a business. At the end of the transaction, the buyer praised Kirstin†s skills and asked to work with her in the future. She had the opportunity to represent that buyer last year. After the transaction, the representative of that buyer sent an unsolicited email to firm leadership, praising Kirstin†s skills. Both Kim & Kirstin helped to found True North, Blackwell Sanders†Women†s Initiative. True North helps Blackwell Sanders†female attorneys form stronger relationships and participate in leadership development activities with each other and with their female clients. Blackwell Sanders Partners Kimberly Jones and Kirstin Pace Salzman were named as two of Missouri†s ‽rising stars” and were recognized in recent issue of Missouri Lawyers Weekly. The 10th annual ‽Up and Coming Lawyers” issue honored 35 Missouri attorneys. There were a record number of nominations this year, which a selection committee read through in search of those attorneys who ‽do something extra to distinguish them as rising bar members.” Each honoree shows exemplary dedication to the practice of law and a commitment to making their communities better places to live. Kim Jones has become an authority on class and collective actions; her successful national practice has led her to spend substantial time in California in recent years. She has been successful where California attorneys have found defending these actions to be difficult. In addition to her successful defense of companies, she is also a superb trainer, proactively working with clients to show them how to follow the law and reduce or eliminate the risks associated with lawsuits and trials. Kim†s commitment to fairness extends beyond her representation of clients. Kim is the chair of Blackwell Sanders†Diversity Committee. Kim is a board member of The Central Exchange, Kansas City's premier organization providing leadership development opportunities for women. Kim also sits on the Steering Committee of the Human Rights Campaign of Kansas City. Kirstin Salzman has distinguished herself as a leading transactional and securities attorney and has earned the respect and admiration of clients and adverse parties alike. Her breadth and depth of securities and public companies experience is a unique asset for someone her age. Kirstin counts among her clients YRC Worldwide, NovaStar Financial and Tortoise Capital Advisors. In her work for Tortoise, Kirstin has worked on several registration statements to register the offering of hundreds of millions of dollars of securities. Kirstin also regularly gives legal guidance on compliance issues to public companies, and she advises the independent members of the board of directors of the UMB Scout funds. In her transaction experience, Kirstin has impressed both sides of the table. In one instance, she represented the seller in the sale of a business. At the end of the transaction, the buyer praised Kirstin†s skills and asked to work with her in the future. She had the opportunity to represent that buyer last year. After the transaction, the representative of that buyer sent an unsolicited email to firm leadership, praising Kirstin†s skills. Both Kim & Kirstin helped to found True North, Blackwell Sanders†Women†s Initiative. True North helps Blackwell Sanders†female attorneys form stronger relationships and participate in leadership development activities with each other and with their female clients. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=200 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=200&page=10 Address : 911 Main StreetSuite 2300 ,, Phone : 816-292-7000, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=283 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=283&page=11 Address : 2600 Grand BoulevardSuite 495 ,, Phone : 816-842-2400, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=509 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=509&page=12 Address : 2600 Grand BoulevardSuite 500 ,, Phone : 816-421-0700, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1120 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1120&page=13 Address : 2345 Grand BoulevardSuite 2800 ,, Phone : 816-292-2000, City : Kansas City Joel Voran, CEO of Lathrop & Gage L.C. announced today that Michele Pittman Gellis has joined the Kansas City, Mo. office as an associate in the business litigation practice area. Pittman Gellis focuses her business litigation practice on a variety of cases involving general business disputes, general civil litigation, environmental litigation, bankruptcy, debt enforcement and collection, as well as insurance coverage disputes. Pittman Gellis received her undergraduate degree from Wesleyan College in 2000 and her juris doctorate from Stetson University College of Law in 2003. She received the Gardner W. Beckett Liberties Award in 2003, was a member of the Stetson Law Review and was a member of the Lambda Pi Eta Communication Honor Society. Pittman Gellis was named the Julia Monroe Woodward Communication Scholar in 2000. She is a current member of the Hillsborough County Bar Association and the Hillsborough Association of Women Lawyers. Joel Voran, CEO of Lathrop & Gage L.C. announced today that Michele Pittman Gellis has joined the Kansas City, Mo. office as an associate in the business litigation practice area. Pittman Gellis focuses her business litigation practice on a variety of cases involving general business disputes, general civil litigation, environmental litigation, bankruptcy, debt enforcement and collection, as well as insurance coverage disputes. Pittman Gellis received her undergraduate degree from Wesleyan College in 2000 and her juris doctorate from Stetson University College of Law in 2003. She received the Gardner W. Beckett Liberties Award in 2003, was a member of the Stetson Law Review and was a member of the Lambda Pi Eta Communication Honor Society. Pittman Gellis was named the Julia Monroe Woodward Communication Scholar in 2000. She is a current member of the Hillsborough County Bar Association and the Hillsborough Association of Women Lawyers. Lathrop & Gage L.C. attorneys Richard N. Bien and Don F. Dagenais were named by their peers to the Kansas City Business Journal†s ‽Best of the Bar,” a list of the most admired and respected lawyers in the Kansas City area. Recipients were nominated by other lawyers throughout the metropolitan area. Once the votes were tallied, a panel of accomplished attorneys reviewed the list and made a final check of each honoree†s reputation and professional standing. The list was published in the Aug. 24 edition of the Kansas City Business Journal, along with a quote from each attorney. Bien is the chair of the firm†s litigation division, where his practice involves the defense of class action claims; life, health and disability insurance defense; ERISA; general business and financial litigation; insurance professional liability litigation; insurance coverage litigation and real estate litigation. He is a past recipient of the ‽Best of the Bar” award and was named to The Best Lawyers in America® in 2007. He also was listed in Missouri/Kansas Super Lawyers in 2005 and 2006. Dagenais is a member in the firm†s real estate practice area. He focuses his practice on commercial real estate purchases, sales, mortgages, leases, management and land use projects for all aspects of commercial development. He is a past recipient of the ‽Best of the Bar” award, in addition to being named to The Best Lawyers in America in 2007 and a Chambers USA ‽Leading Lawyer” for three consecutive years. Lathrop & Gage L.C. attorneys Richard N. Bien and Don F. Dagenais were named by their peers to the Kansas City Business Journal†s ‽Best of the Bar,” a list of the most admired and respected lawyers in the Kansas City area. Recipients were nominated by other lawyers throughout the metropolitan area. Once the votes were tallied, a panel of accomplished attorneys reviewed the list and made a final check of each honoree†s reputation and professional standing. The list was published in the Aug. 24 edition of the Kansas City Business Journal, along with a quote from each attorney. Bien is the chair of the firm†s litigation division, where his practice involves the defense of class action claims; life, health and disability insurance defense; ERISA; general business and financial litigation; insurance professional liability litigation; insurance coverage litigation and real estate litigation. He is a past recipient of the ‽Best of the Bar” award and was named to The Best Lawyers in America® in 2007. He also was listed in Missouri/Kansas Super Lawyers in 2005 and 2006. Dagenais is a member in the firm†s real estate practice area. He focuses his practice on commercial real estate purchases, sales, mortgages, leases, management and land use projects for all aspects of commercial development. He is a past recipient of the ‽Best of the Bar” award, in addition to being named to The Best Lawyers in America in 2007 and a Chambers USA ‽Leading Lawyer” for three consecutive years. Joel Voran, CEO of Lathrop & Gage L.C. announced today that Jehan Kamil has joined the Overland Park, Kan. office as an associate in the business disputes law group. Kamil†s practice focuses on business disputes in the business litigation division. She served as a research attorney for the Honorable Patrick D. McAnany, Kansas Court of Appeals for the last two years. Kamil received her undergraduate degree from the University of Kansas in 2002 and her juris doctorate from the University of Kansas School of Law in 2005. She is a member of the Sam A. Crow American Inn of Court, the Women Attorney†s Association of Topeka and the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association. Joel Voran, CEO of Lathrop & Gage L.C. announced today that Jehan Kamil has joined the Overland Park, Kan. office as an associate in the business disputes law group. Kamil†s practice focuses on business disputes in the business litigation division. She served as a research attorney for the Honorable Patrick D. McAnany, Kansas Court of Appeals for the last two years. Kamil received her undergraduate degree from the University of Kansas in 2002 and her juris doctorate from the University of Kansas School of Law in 2005. She is a member of the Sam A. Crow American Inn of Court, the Women Attorney†s Association of Topeka and the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1372 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1372&page=14 Address : 120 West 12th StreetSuite 12 ,, Phone : 816-421-3355, City : Kansas City Kansas City, MO - Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. attorney Eddie James was named an ‽Up and Coming” attorney by Missouri Lawyers Weekly. Each year the magazine selects attorneys, under age 40, who are rising stars in the legal community. ‽I am thrilled and honored to be chosen among this group of attorneys,” said James who practices in the area of Construction Litigation. James got interested in politics and law when he was just a high school kid working as a runner for a small, three-attorney firm in LaGrange, Georgia. ‽One of the attorneys said I should consider law school if I liked to read, write, talk and deal with people,” said James. ‽That was me all over.” After graduating cum laude with a B.A. in International Studies from The American University Washington, D.C., James earned his J.D. cum laude, from the University of Georgia School of Law. He then served as a federal appellate law clerk for Senior Judge Peter T. Fay, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Miami, Florida. To this day, a letter the judge wrote to Eddie, along with a photograph of the judge swearing-in Eddie, hang on his wall. ‽Clerking for an appellate judge was a fantastic experience for a young lawyer. I got to see up close, errors made at the trial level that were being challenged at the appeals court,” said James. What is most impressive about James today is his local and national involvement in the construction industry. ‽Eddie is very active in the ABA Construction Industry Forum on Construction,” said Roy Bash, Chair of Construction Litigation at Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. ‽He is fulfilling important leadership roles in that organization and it has been beneficial for him and our firm†s presence in the national construction practice. A significant element of our Construction Industry Practice Group is our ability to quickly and efficiently understand the issues, manage the immense amount of information, and marshal the necessary documents to best present arguments for our clients. Eddie has been instrumental in managing and improving our use of technology to meet these challenges.” Even while he is recognized nationally in the construction industry, Eddie†s clients run the gamut of serving as general counsel for small ‽mom and pop” shops, to large construction firms where he has handled $100 million dollar claims. When he drives the highways of Missouri he knows that in some small way, he helped pave the path that led a minority owned female construction company to get the project. Part of his practice includes work in the area of DBE†s, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises and MBE†s, Minority Business Enterprises. James helps these smaller construction companies maintain certification with the certifying agencies so they can equally compete with other construction companies for city or other government contracts. James has been recently asked to co-author the ‽Missouri Construction Law Book” for West and Thompson, quite an honor for a 36 year old lawyer. His long-term goals include maintaining his local and national focus on construction law, and to one day be a neutral party mediating and arbitrating small and large construction cases. Kansas City, MO - Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. attorney Eddie James was named an ‽Up and Coming” attorney by Missouri Lawyers Weekly. Each year the magazine selects attorneys, under age 40, who are rising stars in the legal community. ‽I am thrilled and honored to be chosen among this group of attorneys,” said James who practices in the area of Construction Litigation. James got interested in politics and law when he was just a high school kid working as a runner for a small, three-attorney firm in LaGrange, Georgia. ‽One of the attorneys said I should consider law school if I liked to read, write, talk and deal with people,” said James. ‽That was me all over.” After graduating cum laude with a B.A. in International Studies from The American University Washington, D.C., James earned his J.D. cum laude, from the University of Georgia School of Law. He then served as a federal appellate law clerk for Senior Judge Peter T. Fay, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Miami, Florida. To this day, a letter the judge wrote to Eddie, along with a photograph of the judge swearing-in Eddie, hang on his wall. ‽Clerking for an appellate judge was a fantastic experience for a young lawyer. I got to see up close, errors made at the trial level that were being challenged at the appeals court,” said James. What is most impressive about James today is his local and national involvement in the construction industry. ‽Eddie is very active in the ABA Construction Industry Forum on Construction,” said Roy Bash, Chair of Construction Litigation at Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. ‽He is fulfilling important leadership roles in that organization and it has been beneficial for him and our firm†s presence in the national construction practice. A significant element of our Construction Industry Practice Group is our ability to quickly and efficiently understand the issues, manage the immense amount of information, and marshal the necessary documents to best present arguments for our clients. Eddie has been instrumental in managing and improving our use of technology to meet these challenges.” Even while he is recognized nationally in the construction industry, Eddie†s clients run the gamut of serving as general counsel for small ‽mom and pop” shops, to large construction firms where he has handled $100 million dollar claims. When he drives the highways of Missouri he knows that in some small way, he helped pave the path that led a minority owned female construction company to get the project. Part of his practice includes work in the area of DBE†s, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises and MBE†s, Minority Business Enterprises. James helps these smaller construction companies maintain certification with the certifying agencies so they can equally compete with other construction companies for city or other government contracts. James has been recently asked to co-author the ‽Missouri Construction Law Book” for West and Thompson, quite an honor for a 36 year old lawyer. His long-term goals include maintaining his local and national focus on construction law, and to one day be a neutral party mediating and arbitrating small and large construction cases. Chambers USA, the world†s most prestigious legal directory, released it†s 2007 rankings for lawyers and practice groups. Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., received high rankings for 11 attorneys and 5 practice group areas in Missouri and Kansas. The rankings are based on a band of 1 to 6 with 1 being the best. Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC Rankings: Ranked 1 in Litigation: General Commercial (Kansas City & Surrounds)-Missouri Ranked 2 in Corporate/Mergers and Acquisitions-Kansas Ranked 2 in Litigation: General Commercial-Kansas Ranked 3 in Corporate/Mergers and Acquisitions (Kansas City & Surrounds)-Missouri Ranked 3 in Real Estate (Kansas City & Surrounds)-Missouri Individual Rankings Ranked * for R Lawrence Ward in Litigation: General Commercial (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 1 for Greg L Musil in Litigation: General Commercial - Kansas Ranked 1 for Lawrence A Swain in Corporate/M&A - Kansas Ranked 2 for Roy Bash in Litigation: General Commercial (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 2 for Robert E Fitzgerald Jr in Real Estate (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 2 for W Terrence Kilroy in Labor & Employment (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 2 for Thomas G Kokoruda in Litigation: General Commercial (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 2 for Michael B Shteamer in Real Estate (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 3 for Robert E Fitzgerald Jr in Corporate/M&A (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 3 for John M Kilroy Jr in Litigation: General Commercial (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 3 for Anthony F Rupp in Litigation: General Commercial - Kansas Chambers USA, the world†s most prestigious legal directory, released it†s 2007 rankings for lawyers and practice groups. Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., received high rankings for 11 attorneys and 5 practice group areas in Missouri and Kansas. The rankings are based on a band of 1 to 6 with 1 being the best. Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC Rankings: Ranked 1 in Litigation: General Commercial (Kansas City & Surrounds)-Missouri Ranked 2 in Corporate/Mergers and Acquisitions-Kansas Ranked 2 in Litigation: General Commercial-Kansas Ranked 3 in Corporate/Mergers and Acquisitions (Kansas City & Surrounds)-Missouri Ranked 3 in Real Estate (Kansas City & Surrounds)-Missouri Individual Rankings Ranked * for R Lawrence Ward in Litigation: General Commercial (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 1 for Greg L Musil in Litigation: General Commercial - Kansas Ranked 1 for Lawrence A Swain in Corporate/M&A - Kansas Ranked 2 for Roy Bash in Litigation: General Commercial (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 2 for Robert E Fitzgerald Jr in Real Estate (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 2 for W Terrence Kilroy in Labor & Employment (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 2 for Thomas G Kokoruda in Litigation: General Commercial (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 2 for Michael B Shteamer in Real Estate (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 3 for Robert E Fitzgerald Jr in Corporate/M&A (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 3 for John M Kilroy Jr in Litigation: General Commercial (Kansas City & Surrounds) - Missouri Ranked 3 for Anthony F Rupp in Litigation: General Commercial - Kansas Young Lawyers Section. Sobba has served for four years as a board member with the organization before being voted president. ‽This is a real honor for me,” said Sobba, an attorney with Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. ‽I am excited about this year, and am looking forward to working with our board and membership to do some good work in the community.” The Young Lawyers Section of the Lawyers Association of Kansas City works with lawyers under age 36 to perform public service projects in the community, to educate young attorneys through continuing education programs, and to provide networking opportunities for young attorneys. Some of the high-profile work they do includes the ‽Skippy and Skivvies Drive,” where lawyers collect diapers, peanut butter and donations for Operation Breakthrough; ‽Santa†s Snow Ball,” an evening holiday party for underprivileged children in Kansas City; the Youth Empowerment Summit (‽YES”) where they coordinate dispute resolution training for middle school children in the Kansas City area; and the ‽Court Crawl,” where young lawyers are guided on a tour of the federal courthouse, county courthouse and court of appeals, and have the opportunity to hear remarks from Judges at each location. ‽There is a great reward that comes from public service -- whether participating in the LAKC-YLS public service projects, or in the many other public service projects that are carried on by so many other organizations each day in KC. Our LAKC-YLS board likes to think of itself as a vehicle to connect young lawyers with public service opportunities. We have a fantastic board of directors in place this year, and we are very excited to continue the tradition of some of our more established service projects, while at the same time keeping an eye out for new projects that might be of interest,” said Sobba. ‽One goal is always to increase membership and attendance at LAKC-YLS events, and I think we are well on our way in that regard. Attendance and participation for the events we have hosted so far this year have been up, and I have no reason to believe that will change. We are focused on, and want to continue, the momentum.” Sobba practices in the areas of business and construction litigation. He has been employed with Shughart Thomson & Kilroy since August of 2001. He earned his J.D. from KU and is a graduate of Kansas Newman College. Interestingly, Sobba started college with a different major in mind. ‽As a kid, I actually thought I wanted to be a veterinarian. But I started working summers as a runner and general assistant for family friends that practiced law, and it seemed like an interesting profession to me,” said Sobba. Sobba clerked for Shughart the summer between his second and third years of law school, and then accepted a position with the Firm following the clerkship. ‽I think Shughart Thomson & Kilroy and Kansas City have been great places to call home. I†ve also been very fortunate to have the opportunity to work with so many good attorneys and many good service projects through involvement with the LAKC-YLS.” Sobba played baseball for four years at Kansas Newman College, and now enjoys sports and golf as a busy attorney. When he isn†t practicing law or participating in sports, he likes to be outside. ‽In spare time, I like to do pretty much anything that will get me outdoors â€" whether it†s golf, mowing the lawn, landscaping, catching a Royals game at Kauffman, you name it. If it†s outdoors, chances are I†m in.” Young Lawyers Section. Sobba has served for four years as a board member with the organization before being voted president. ‽This is a real honor for me,” said Sobba, an attorney with Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. ‽I am excited about this year, and am looking forward to working with our board and membership to do some good work in the community.” The Young Lawyers Section of the Lawyers Association of Kansas City works with lawyers under age 36 to perform public service projects in the community, to educate young attorneys through continuing education programs, and to provide networking opportunities for young attorneys. Some of the high-profile work they do includes the ‽Skippy and Skivvies Drive,” where lawyers collect diapers, peanut butter and donations for Operation Breakthrough; ‽Santa†s Snow Ball,” an evening holiday party for underprivileged children in Kansas City; the Youth Empowerment Summit (‽YES”) where they coordinate dispute resolution training for middle school children in the Kansas City area; and the ‽Court Crawl,” where young lawyers are guided on a tour of the federal courthouse, county courthouse and court of appeals, and have the opportunity to hear remarks from Judges at each location. ‽There is a great reward that comes from public service -- whether participating in the LAKC-YLS public service projects, or in the many other public service projects that are carried on by so many other organizations each day in KC. Our LAKC-YLS board likes to think of itself as a vehicle to connect young lawyers with public service opportunities. We have a fantastic board of directors in place this year, and we are very excited to continue the tradition of some of our more established service projects, while at the same time keeping an eye out for new projects that might be of interest,” said Sobba. ‽One goal is always to increase membership and attendance at LAKC-YLS events, and I think we are well on our way in that regard. Attendance and participation for the events we have hosted so far this year have been up, and I have no reason to believe that will change. We are focused on, and want to continue, the momentum.” Sobba practices in the areas of business and construction litigation. He has been employed with Shughart Thomson & Kilroy since August of 2001. He earned his J.D. from KU and is a graduate of Kansas Newman College. Interestingly, Sobba started college with a different major in mind. ‽As a kid, I actually thought I wanted to be a veterinarian. But I started working summers as a runner and general assistant for family friends that practiced law, and it seemed like an interesting profession to me,” said Sobba. Sobba clerked for Shughart the summer between his second and third years of law school, and then accepted a position with the Firm following the clerkship. ‽I think Shughart Thomson & Kilroy and Kansas City have been great places to call home. I†ve also been very fortunate to have the opportunity to work with so many good attorneys and many good service projects through involvement with the LAKC-YLS.” Sobba played baseball for four years at Kansas Newman College, and now enjoys sports and golf as a busy attorney. When he isn†t practicing law or participating in sports, he likes to be outside. ‽In spare time, I like to do pretty much anything that will get me outdoors â€" whether it†s golf, mowing the lawn, landscaping, catching a Royals game at Kauffman, you name it. If it†s outdoors, chances are I†m in.” http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2183 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2183&page=15 Address : 1000 Walnut StreetSuite 1400 ,, Phone : 816-474-8100, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2236 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2236&page=16 Address : P.O. Box 26188, Phone : 816-421-6620, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2462 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2462&page=17 Address : One Metropolitan SquareSuite 2600 ,, Phone : 314-621-5070, City : Saint Louis Armstrong Teasdale has earned the biggest honor of all â€" positive testimonials from an existing client. Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, a firm client since 1986, and the leading integrated manufacturer of paperboard and paper-based packaging products, named Armstrong Teasdale as its firm of choice for Corporate Governance, Corporate Transactions, and Intellectual Property services in a recent survey conducted by The American Lawyer. As a result of this professional reference Armstrong Teasdale will be listed in FORTUNE Magazine†s exclusive publication ‽Go-To Law Firms of the Top U.S. Companies” on May 15, 2006. Armstrong Teasdale has earned the biggest honor of all â€" positive testimonials from an existing client. Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, a firm client since 1986, and the leading integrated manufacturer of paperboard and paper-based packaging products, named Armstrong Teasdale as its firm of choice for Corporate Governance, Corporate Transactions, and Intellectual Property services in a recent survey conducted by The American Lawyer. As a result of this professional reference Armstrong Teasdale will be listed in FORTUNE Magazine†s exclusive publication ‽Go-To Law Firms of the Top U.S. Companies” on May 15, 2006. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=62 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=62&page=39 Address : 211 North BroadwaySuite 3600 ,, Phone : 314-259-2000, City : Saint Louis Bryan Cave LLP New York Counsel Alan Appel will join some of the country†s leading attorneys and government officials Sept. 27-29 to examine the latest policies, initiatives and regulations related to taxation and property. Appel and others from the ABA†s Section of Taxation and Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law will meet in Vancouver, B.C., for their joint fall CLE conference. Saturday, Sept. 29, Appel joins a panel discussion on the choice of entity ownership in cross-border real estate investment transactions. They also will discuss the fifth protocol to the U.S.-Canada Income Tax Treaty that was signed Sept. 21. The protocol radically changes investments between the U.S. and Canada. Appel is vice chair of the ABA Section of Taxation†s U.S. Activities of Foreigners and Tax Treaties Committee. At Bryan Cave, he focuses his practice in domestic and international tax planning involving taxation of mergers and acquisitions, partnerships, joint ventures, limited liability companies and tax controversy matters. On behalf of the ABA Tax Section, Appel had primary responsibility for drafting and submitting comments to the U.S. Treasury Department and IRS concerning the scope of the guidance provided by the proposed regulations under Section 1446 of the Internal Revenue Code. A frequent author on tax topics, Appel has appeared on both radio and television discussing various income tax issues and is a member of the adjunct tax faculty of the New York Law School. Bryan Cave LLP New York Counsel Alan Appel will join some of the country†s leading attorneys and government officials Sept. 27-29 to examine the latest policies, initiatives and regulations related to taxation and property. Appel and others from the ABA†s Section of Taxation and Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law will meet in Vancouver, B.C., for their joint fall CLE conference. Saturday, Sept. 29, Appel joins a panel discussion on the choice of entity ownership in cross-border real estate investment transactions. They also will discuss the fifth protocol to the U.S.-Canada Income Tax Treaty that was signed Sept. 21. The protocol radically changes investments between the U.S. and Canada. Appel is vice chair of the ABA Section of Taxation†s U.S. Activities of Foreigners and Tax Treaties Committee. At Bryan Cave, he focuses his practice in domestic and international tax planning involving taxation of mergers and acquisitions, partnerships, joint ventures, limited liability companies and tax controversy matters. On behalf of the ABA Tax Section, Appel had primary responsibility for drafting and submitting comments to the U.S. Treasury Department and IRS concerning the scope of the guidance provided by the proposed regulations under Section 1446 of the Internal Revenue Code. A frequent author on tax topics, Appel has appeared on both radio and television discussing various income tax issues and is a member of the adjunct tax faculty of the New York Law School. Bryan Cave LLP†s Santa Monica office recently was named one of the ‽Best Places to Work in LA” for 2007 by the Los Angeles Business Journal. From hundreds of applicants throughout Los Angeles County, Bryan Cave was among 60 companies selected, and one of only four law firms honored. Bryan Cave was the highest-ranked law firm in the medium-sized companies group (25-249 employees). ‽We are proud to receive this accolade from our market†s leading business publication,” said Jeff Modisett, managing partner of Bryan Cave's Santa Monica office. ‽This distinction is a testament to the office†s teamwork and directly translates to the best service for our clients.” The recognition is based on an evaluation of workplace policies, practices, philosophy, systems and demographics along with an in-depth survey measuring the employee experience. The combined scores determined the top companies and final ranking. The process was managed by Best Companies Group, a professional firm and division of Journal Publications Inc., and ModernThink LLC, a strategic human resources consulting firm. The final rankings were revealed at an awards reception Sept. 18 at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel to a crowd of nearly 500 business professionals. Bryan Cave was highlighted in the Sept. 24 issue of the Los Angeles Business Journal. Bryan Cave LLP†s Santa Monica office recently was named one of the ‽Best Places to Work in LA” for 2007 by the Los Angeles Business Journal. From hundreds of applicants throughout Los Angeles County, Bryan Cave was among 60 companies selected, and one of only four law firms honored. Bryan Cave was the highest-ranked law firm in the medium-sized companies group (25-249 employees). ‽We are proud to receive this accolade from our market†s leading business publication,” said Jeff Modisett, managing partner of Bryan Cave's Santa Monica office. ‽This distinction is a testament to the office†s teamwork and directly translates to the best service for our clients.” The recognition is based on an evaluation of workplace policies, practices, philosophy, systems and demographics along with an in-depth survey measuring the employee experience. The combined scores determined the top companies and final ranking. The process was managed by Best Companies Group, a professional firm and division of Journal Publications Inc., and ModernThink LLC, a strategic human resources consulting firm. The final rankings were revealed at an awards reception Sept. 18 at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel to a crowd of nearly 500 business professionals. Bryan Cave was highlighted in the Sept. 24 issue of the Los Angeles Business Journal. Thirteen Bryan Cave lawyers were finalists to the third annual Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America guide. William Bavinger, James Cole, Jerry Hunter, Christopher Lause, Don Lents, Mary Mancini, Stanley Marcuss, Mary "Mimi" Moore, Craig O'Dear, Rodney Page, John Peirce, Lawrence Scarborough and Thomas Van Dyke were selected as finalists in what Lawdragon calls ‽the most prestigious distinction in the legal profession.” Additionally, Christopher Lause, Don Lents and Craig O'Dear were listed in the summer edition of The Lawdragon 500 Leading Dealmakers. They made the list for their noted work on headline-making transactions, from M&As and securities transactions to public and private financings to real estate deals. ‽The Lawdragon 500 is the ultimate guide to the best lawyers in the nation,” asserts the publication. Fewer than .01 percent of all lawyers in the U.S. will be named a member of the Lawdragon 500. Lawdragon's editorial staff conducts research and phones legal professionals to solicit their opinions about who the best lawyers are in the nation. They then combine this research with votes collected through online ballots to produce the Lawdragon 500 print magazine and online feature. Thirteen Bryan Cave lawyers were finalists to the third annual Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America guide. William Bavinger, James Cole, Jerry Hunter, Christopher Lause, Don Lents, Mary Mancini, Stanley Marcuss, Mary "Mimi" Moore, Craig O'Dear, Rodney Page, John Peirce, Lawrence Scarborough and Thomas Van Dyke were selected as finalists in what Lawdragon calls ‽the most prestigious distinction in the legal profession.” Additionally, Christopher Lause, Don Lents and Craig O'Dear were listed in the summer edition of The Lawdragon 500 Leading Dealmakers. They made the list for their noted work on headline-making transactions, from M&As and securities transactions to public and private financings to real estate deals. ‽The Lawdragon 500 is the ultimate guide to the best lawyers in the nation,” asserts the publication. Fewer than .01 percent of all lawyers in the U.S. will be named a member of the Lawdragon 500. Lawdragon's editorial staff conducts research and phones legal professionals to solicit their opinions about who the best lawyers are in the nation. They then combine this research with votes collected through online ballots to produce the Lawdragon 500 print magazine and online feature. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=299 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=299&page=40 Address : 515 Olive StreetSuite 1100 ,, Phone : 314-621-7755, City : Saint Louis Ellen E. Brooke has joined the civil defense practice group of Evans & Dixon, L.L.C. as an associate.Brooke is licensed to practice in Missouri. She received her bachelor†s degree and her law degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Brooke previously was employed by another St. Louis law firm. She currently is a member of the American Bar Association and the Missouri Bar Association. Ellen E. Brooke has joined the civil defense practice group of Evans & Dixon, L.L.C. as an associate.Brooke is licensed to practice in Missouri. She received her bachelor†s degree and her law degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Brooke previously was employed by another St. Louis law firm. She currently is a member of the American Bar Association and the Missouri Bar Association. Talmage E. Newton IV has joined the civil defense practice group of Evans & Dixon, L.L.C. as an associate. Newton is licensed to practice in Missouri, the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He has experience in assaults, violent attacks and falls. He also is experienced in contract litigation and commercial disputes, employment discrimination litigation, appeals and criminal defense. Newton currently is a member of the Missouri Bar Association and the American Bar Association. Newton received his bachelor†s degree in political science from the University of Evansville and his law degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Newton currently is a board member for the Central West End-Midtown Development Committee, and he also participates in community groups such as Friends of the St. Louis Zoo and Young Friends of the St. Louis Art Museum. Talmage E. Newton IV has joined the civil defense practice group of Evans & Dixon, L.L.C. as an associate. Newton is licensed to practice in Missouri, the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He has experience in assaults, violent attacks and falls. He also is experienced in contract litigation and commercial disputes, employment discrimination litigation, appeals and criminal defense. Newton currently is a member of the Missouri Bar Association and the American Bar Association. Newton received his bachelor†s degree in political science from the University of Evansville and his law degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Newton currently is a board member for the Central West End-Midtown Development Committee, and he also participates in community groups such as Friends of the St. Louis Zoo and Young Friends of the St. Louis Art Museum. Evans & Dixon L.L.C. has expanded to new 3,840-square-foot offices at 1717 E. Republic Road, Suite C, Springfield, MO 65804. The new office will accommodate the growing workers†compensation and civil litigation practices in Springfield and include an additional conference room and more office space. .Local Evans & Dixon attorneys include Shari Lockhart, Michael Mayes, Karen Johnson, Catherine Goodnight and Allison Greenwade. Previously, the law firm was located at 1200 E. Woodhurst Drive, B200, in Springfield for four years, and has been located in Springfield since 2001. Evans & Dixon L.L.C. is open Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. â€" 5 p.m. To contact Evans & Dixon, call 417/882-4700. Evans & Dixon L.L.C. has expanded to new 3,840-square-foot offices at 1717 E. Republic Road, Suite C, Springfield, MO 65804. The new office will accommodate the growing workers†compensation and civil litigation practices in Springfield and include an additional conference room and more office space. .Local Evans & Dixon attorneys include Shari Lockhart, Michael Mayes, Karen Johnson, Catherine Goodnight and Allison Greenwade. Previously, the law firm was located at 1200 E. Woodhurst Drive, B200, in Springfield for four years, and has been located in Springfield since 2001. Evans & Dixon L.L.C. is open Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. â€" 5 p.m. To contact Evans & Dixon, call 417/882-4700. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=711 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=711&page=41 Address : 2400 Pershing RoadSuite 500 ,, Phone : 816-471-2121, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=102 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=102&page=21 Address : 2600 Grand BoulevardSuite 1200 ,, Phone : 816-561-7007, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=171 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=171&page=22 Address : 4420 Madison Avenue, Phone : 816-931-2700, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=678 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=678&page=23 Address : 911 Main Street30th Floor ,, Phone : 816-472-7474, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=774 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=774&page=24 Address : 2405 Grand BoulevardSuite 1100 ,, Phone : 816-221-1000, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=881 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=881&page=25 Address : 2405 Grand BoulevardSuite 400 ,, Phone : 816-474-9050, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1125 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1125&page=26 Address : 605 West 47th StreetSuite 350 ,, Phone : 816-753-5400, City : Kansas City McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan announces the re-election of R. Pete Smith as President and Thomas R. Buchanan as Vice President. The remaining Executive Committee Members are Stuart E. Bodker, Brian J. Niceswanger, and Danny L. Curtis. McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan announces the re-election of R. Pete Smith as President and Thomas R. Buchanan as Vice President. The remaining Executive Committee Members are Stuart E. Bodker, Brian J. Niceswanger, and Danny L. Curtis. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1586 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1586&page=27 Address : 4717 Grand AvenueSuite 820 ,, Phone : 800-444-7552, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1680 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1680&page=28 Address : 700 West 47th StreetSuite 1000 ,, Phone : 816-753-1000, City : Kansas City This statement is offered by an international pre-election delegation organized by the National Democratic Institute (NDI). The delegation visited Ukraine from August 14 to August 20 to assess preparations for the September 30, 2007 Parliamentary elections. This delegation was composed of former Congressman and House Democratic Caucus Chair Martin Frost, elections consultant and former Deputy Director of the OSCE†s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Peter Eicher, former United Nations Assistant Secretary General Cedric Thornberry, and NDI Eurasia Deputy Director Katie Fox. The delegation†s purposes were to demonstrate the interest of the international community in the development of a democratic political process and democratic governance in Ukraine, and to present an accurate and impartial assessment of the political environment and its implications for democratic development. In late September, NDI will deploy a 30-person international observer delegation that will monitor the September 30 elections and the post-election period. NDI†s programs in Ukraine are funded by a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The NDI pre-election delegation met with a diverse group of Ukrainian political and civic leaders, non-governmental organizations and domestic election groups, electoral authorities, government officials, and representatives of the media and the international community in Kyiv. The delegation conducted its activities in accordance with the laws of Ukraine and the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation. NDI does not seek to interfere in Ukraine†s election process, and recognizes that, ultimately, it will be the people of Ukraine who will determine the credibility of their elections and the country†s democratic development. This statement is offered by an international pre-election delegation organized by the National Democratic Institute (NDI). The delegation visited Ukraine from August 14 to August 20 to assess preparations for the September 30, 2007 Parliamentary elections. This delegation was composed of former Congressman and House Democratic Caucus Chair Martin Frost, elections consultant and former Deputy Director of the OSCE†s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Peter Eicher, former United Nations Assistant Secretary General Cedric Thornberry, and NDI Eurasia Deputy Director Katie Fox. The delegation†s purposes were to demonstrate the interest of the international community in the development of a democratic political process and democratic governance in Ukraine, and to present an accurate and impartial assessment of the political environment and its implications for democratic development. In late September, NDI will deploy a 30-person international observer delegation that will monitor the September 30 elections and the post-election period. NDI†s programs in Ukraine are funded by a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The NDI pre-election delegation met with a diverse group of Ukrainian political and civic leaders, non-governmental organizations and domestic election groups, electoral authorities, government officials, and representatives of the media and the international community in Kyiv. The delegation conducted its activities in accordance with the laws of Ukraine and the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation. NDI does not seek to interfere in Ukraine†s election process, and recognizes that, ultimately, it will be the people of Ukraine who will determine the credibility of their elections and the country†s democratic development. At Multilaw's recent Europe/Middle East/African Regional Conference, Polsinelli tax attorney Michael Cornett assumed leadership of its Taxation Group. At Multilaw's recent Europe/Middle East/African Regional Conference, Polsinelli tax attorney Michael Cornett assumed leadership of its Taxation Group. Polsinelli's Martin Frost is leading a pre-election monitoring delegation to Ukraine. The delegation, which includes former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Cedric Thornberry, will travel to Ukraine in August in advance of the parliamentary elections set for September. The delegation will monitor the pre-election activities to ensure they are free of pressure, intimidation and harrassment of voters. Polsinelli's Martin Frost is leading a pre-election monitoring delegation to Ukraine. The delegation, which includes former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Cedric Thornberry, will travel to Ukraine in August in advance of the parliamentary elections set for September. The delegation will monitor the pre-election activities to ensure they are free of pressure, intimidation and harrassment of voters. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1897 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1897&page=29 Address : 911 Main StreetSuite 2800 ,, Phone : 816-421-4460, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2141 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2141&page=30 Address : 2555 Grand Boulevard, Phone : 816-474-6550, City : Kansas City SHB Partners Bill Allinder and Greg Fowler have co-authored an article with Lockheed counsel C. Douglas Goins titled ‽A Framework for Managing Mass Tort Litigation” in the September 2007 issue of DRI†s In-House Defense Quarterly. Describing six basic elements essential to promoting ‽ a consistent, coordinated, centralized, and cost-effective defense for a mass tort company defendant,” the authors recommend that companies first establish ‽an effective litigation management structure” by engaging national counsel with expertise in complex litigation and ‽extensive auxiliary resources, such as stable associations with top-notch counsel in numerous jurisdictions.” National and in-house counsel can then work together to (i) determine the important fact on which the litigation will turn, (ii) prepare a risk assessment, (iii) develop a corporate-litigation strategy, (iv) create a centralized information management and communication system, and (v) develop a litigation budget that reflects the strategic plan. ‽In mass tort litigation, a national counsel structure and national litigation strategy is more a necessity than a luxury,” the authors conclude. SHB Partners Bill Allinder and Greg Fowler have co-authored an article with Lockheed counsel C. Douglas Goins titled ‽A Framework for Managing Mass Tort Litigation” in the September 2007 issue of DRI†s In-House Defense Quarterly. Describing six basic elements essential to promoting ‽ a consistent, coordinated, centralized, and cost-effective defense for a mass tort company defendant,” the authors recommend that companies first establish ‽an effective litigation management structure” by engaging national counsel with expertise in complex litigation and ‽extensive auxiliary resources, such as stable associations with top-notch counsel in numerous jurisdictions.” National and in-house counsel can then work together to (i) determine the important fact on which the litigation will turn, (ii) prepare a risk assessment, (iii) develop a corporate-litigation strategy, (iv) create a centralized information management and communication system, and (v) develop a litigation budget that reflects the strategic plan. ‽In mass tort litigation, a national counsel structure and national litigation strategy is more a necessity than a luxury,” the authors conclude. SHB Partner Greg Fowler, Partner Sam Sebree and Associate Marc Shelley have co-authored an article titled ‽Seeking Discovery in U.S. Courts to Aid in Foreign Proceedings” in the September 6, 2007, issue of DRI Europe eNews. Greg, Sam and Marc address recent developments concerning the statute named ‽Assistance to Foreign and International Tribunals and to Litigants Before Such Tribunals,” 28 U.S.C. §1782 (2006), which ‽codifies principles of comity to enable a U.S. district court, under certain circumstances that appear necessary and just, to grant the request of a party seeking the production of evidence for use in a foreign tribunal.” In light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that broadened the statute†s interpretation, they discuss changes in how the measure is invoked and the opportunities and defenses available to practitioners. The article includes specific strategies for responding to discovery requests under Section 1782(a) and advises those opposing production to, among other things, ‽argue that the measure seeks to circumvent the foreign proof-gathering restrictions or policies of the foreign court.” In addition, the authors note that the increased use of the statute intersects two current litigation trends, that is, the growing global demand for greater consumer protection and its effect on document-retention obligations. SHB Partner Greg Fowler, Partner Sam Sebree and Associate Marc Shelley have co-authored an article titled ‽Seeking Discovery in U.S. Courts to Aid in Foreign Proceedings” in the September 6, 2007, issue of DRI Europe eNews. Greg, Sam and Marc address recent developments concerning the statute named ‽Assistance to Foreign and International Tribunals and to Litigants Before Such Tribunals,” 28 U.S.C. §1782 (2006), which ‽codifies principles of comity to enable a U.S. district court, under certain circumstances that appear necessary and just, to grant the request of a party seeking the production of evidence for use in a foreign tribunal.” In light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that broadened the statute†s interpretation, they discuss changes in how the measure is invoked and the opportunities and defenses available to practitioners. The article includes specific strategies for responding to discovery requests under Section 1782(a) and advises those opposing production to, among other things, ‽argue that the measure seeks to circumvent the foreign proof-gathering restrictions or policies of the foreign court.” In addition, the authors note that the increased use of the statute intersects two current litigation trends, that is, the growing global demand for greater consumer protection and its effect on document-retention obligations. Of Counsel Bryan Pratt has been selected by his colleagues in the Missouri House of Representatives to serve as the next speaker pro tem. This is the second ranking position behind the House speaker and has been a stepping stone to that position. While representatives in the speaker pro tem spot have historically been relegated to presiding over the House in the speaker's absence, the last legislator to hold the seat played a major role in handling some of the legislature's highest profile bills in recent months. Bryan, a 1999 law graduate of the University of Missouri -- Columbia, is recognized for his procedural savvy and dedication . He has served in the House since 2002 and previously chaired the House Judiciary Committee. Of Counsel Bryan Pratt has been selected by his colleagues in the Missouri House of Representatives to serve as the next speaker pro tem. This is the second ranking position behind the House speaker and has been a stepping stone to that position. While representatives in the speaker pro tem spot have historically been relegated to presiding over the House in the speaker's absence, the last legislator to hold the seat played a major role in handling some of the legislature's highest profile bills in recent months. Bryan, a 1999 law graduate of the University of Missouri -- Columbia, is recognized for his procedural savvy and dedication . He has served in the House since 2002 and previously chaired the House Judiciary Committee. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2182 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2182&page=31 Address : 4600 Madison AvenueSuite 600 ,, Phone : 816-410-4600, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2205 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2205&page=32 Address : 1201 Walnut StreetSuite 2800 , P.O. Box 419251, Phone : 816-842-8600, City : Kansas City Seventy-seven lawyers from Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2008 (Copyright 2007 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, S.C.). Every firm office had an attorney selected to the list. In Missouri, the firm has the most Best Lawyers in the fields of banking, corporate law, employee benefits, environmental law and mergers & acquisitions. In addition, 47 of the lawyers selected are based in the firm†s Kansas City offices, making it the most represented firm in the region. Nineteen of the firm†s lawyers have been listed in Best Lawyers for at least 10 consecutive years, and four have been listed for 20 or more consecutive years. Fifteen lawyers are listed for the first time. The Best Lawyers†lists represent 80 specialties in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The lists are compiled through an exhaustive peer-review survey in which thousands of the top lawyers in the United States confidentially evaluate their professional peers. ‽We are honored to have so many partners included with such an exclusive group of attorneys,” said Mark Foster, firm managing partner. ‽The recognition truly reflects our firm†s commitment to excellence in all of our offices nationwide and the continued respect of the legal community.” Seventy-seven lawyers from Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2008 (Copyright 2007 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, S.C.). Every firm office had an attorney selected to the list. In Missouri, the firm has the most Best Lawyers in the fields of banking, corporate law, employee benefits, environmental law and mergers & acquisitions. In addition, 47 of the lawyers selected are based in the firm†s Kansas City offices, making it the most represented firm in the region. Nineteen of the firm†s lawyers have been listed in Best Lawyers for at least 10 consecutive years, and four have been listed for 20 or more consecutive years. Fifteen lawyers are listed for the first time. The Best Lawyers†lists represent 80 specialties in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The lists are compiled through an exhaustive peer-review survey in which thousands of the top lawyers in the United States confidentially evaluate their professional peers. ‽We are honored to have so many partners included with such an exclusive group of attorneys,” said Mark Foster, firm managing partner. ‽The recognition truly reflects our firm†s commitment to excellence in all of our offices nationwide and the continued respect of the legal community.” Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP Partner Matt Salzman was named as an ‽Up and Coming Lawyer” by Missouri Lawyers Weekly. He is one of 35 attorneys selected to this 10th annual issue who ‽stand out for their dedication to learning, teaching, and improving their communities.” The publication received a record number of nominations, which were sought from the readers of Missouri Lawyers Weekly as well as the paper†s newsroom. Honorees were selected because they ‽dedicate themselves to a vocation, not merely a job, and believe being a lawyer means more than winning a big verdict or writing a killer contract.” From an early age, Salzman, a partner in the business litigation division, has been involved in significant cases. He found himself, at the age of 34, as lead defense counsel in two nationwide securities class action and derivative lawsuits. He successfully defended the directors of a public company in these two lawsuits that arose from an attempted management buy-out and sale of the company. Salzman found it to be a humbling experience that his clients, very distinguished directors, had faith in him to defend them and, to some extent, placed their personal fortunes in his hands. Within the firm, Salzman serves as a member of the firm†s client development committee. His civic interests center around Kansas City†s downtown development and children†s issues. He was selected to participate in the Civic Council†s Kansas City Tomorrow Program and in the KC Chamber of Commerce†s Centurions Leadership Training Program. Both of these programs are dedicated to training the emerging business and civic leaders in Kansas City. Salzman also was named one of Ingram†s "40 Under 40." Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP Partner Matt Salzman was named as an ‽Up and Coming Lawyer” by Missouri Lawyers Weekly. He is one of 35 attorneys selected to this 10th annual issue who ‽stand out for their dedication to learning, teaching, and improving their communities.” The publication received a record number of nominations, which were sought from the readers of Missouri Lawyers Weekly as well as the paper†s newsroom. Honorees were selected because they ‽dedicate themselves to a vocation, not merely a job, and believe being a lawyer means more than winning a big verdict or writing a killer contract.” From an early age, Salzman, a partner in the business litigation division, has been involved in significant cases. He found himself, at the age of 34, as lead defense counsel in two nationwide securities class action and derivative lawsuits. He successfully defended the directors of a public company in these two lawsuits that arose from an attempted management buy-out and sale of the company. Salzman found it to be a humbling experience that his clients, very distinguished directors, had faith in him to defend them and, to some extent, placed their personal fortunes in his hands. Within the firm, Salzman serves as a member of the firm†s client development committee. His civic interests center around Kansas City†s downtown development and children†s issues. He was selected to participate in the Civic Council†s Kansas City Tomorrow Program and in the KC Chamber of Commerce†s Centurions Leadership Training Program. Both of these programs are dedicated to training the emerging business and civic leaders in Kansas City. Salzman also was named one of Ingram†s "40 Under 40." "The Omaha office of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP continues to grow with the addition of two new attorneys and expanded office space. Mark Peterson and Nora Kane joined the Intellectual Property & Technology Division of the Omaha office effective Aug. 1. Peterson joins the firm as partner while Kane joins as of counsel. With these and other recent additions, Stinson Morrison Hecker is expanding its Omaha office to a total of 18,700 square feet. The firm now occupies the entire top floor of their downtown office building. ‽We are committed to growing and expanding our Omaha office. The addition of these two excellent attorneys and office space are two ways we are following through on that commitment,” said Jeff Toberer, Omaha managing partner. ‽Mark and Nora bring years of experience that will greatly benefit our clients†needs in the area of intellectual property.” A Nebraska native, Peterson comes to Stinson Morrison Hecker with nearly 20 years experience in intellectual property matters, particularly patent and trademark disputes. Peterson earned his juris doctorate from the University of Nebraska School of Law and a bachelor of science from Nebraska Wesleyan University. Kane joins Stinson Morrison Hecker with more than 10 years experience in litigation and trial law. Kane earned her juris doctorate from the University of South Dakota School of Law and bachelor of arts in criminal justice studies from the University of South Dakota." "The Omaha office of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP continues to grow with the addition of two new attorneys and expanded office space. Mark Peterson and Nora Kane joined the Intellectual Property & Technology Division of the Omaha office effective Aug. 1. Peterson joins the firm as partner while Kane joins as of counsel. With these and other recent additions, Stinson Morrison Hecker is expanding its Omaha office to a total of 18,700 square feet. The firm now occupies the entire top floor of their downtown office building. ‽We are committed to growing and expanding our Omaha office. The addition of these two excellent attorneys and office space are two ways we are following through on that commitment,” said Jeff Toberer, Omaha managing partner. ‽Mark and Nora bring years of experience that will greatly benefit our clients†needs in the area of intellectual property.” A Nebraska native, Peterson comes to Stinson Morrison Hecker with nearly 20 years experience in intellectual property matters, particularly patent and trademark disputes. Peterson earned his juris doctorate from the University of Nebraska School of Law and a bachelor of science from Nebraska Wesleyan University. Kane joins Stinson Morrison Hecker with more than 10 years experience in litigation and trial law. Kane earned her juris doctorate from the University of South Dakota School of Law and bachelor of arts in criminal justice studies from the University of South Dakota." http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2272 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2272&page=33 Address : 4600 Madison AvenueSuite 1100 ,, Phone : 816-842-6100, City : Kansas City IT IS IMPROPER TO AWARD ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1981, WHEN A CLAIMANT PLEADS AND PROVES RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND NOT RACE-BASED DESCRIMINATION. DAMAGE AWARD TO MEDICAL RESIDENT STUDENT AND DOCTOR BASED UPON ANTICIPATED SALARY WAS SPECULATIVE AND THE EXISTENCE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES ARE NOT REASONABLY CERTAIN. Medical college sued resident student for non-payment of tuition. Resident student counter-claimed for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment and violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981, claiming he was discriminated against, was required to pay a higher tuition rate than contracted and that medical college†s withholding of his diploma delayed his career in the medical profession. After medical school†s attorney withdrew and provided written notice to medical school of trial date, medical school did not appear at the trial date and failed to retain counsel until after a substantial verdict was entered against medical school at the trial date. The court of appeals ruled that it was error for the trial court to award actual and punitive damages against medical school under 42 U.S.C. 1981 because claims based upon national origin and religious discrimination are insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1981. Medical student†s failure to present evidence that he was of Persian ancestry or any other of the many other ethnicities of his country of origin and that his ethnicity and not country of origin was basis of discrimination made an award of damages under 42 U.S.C. 1981 improper. It was also error for the court to award $392,437.50 to the medical student for lost wages, where the student failed to prove his damages were reasonably certain and not speculative. Medical student failed to show that he had or would pass the necessary exams or would be approved by the appropriate licensing body to practice medicine. Lastly, he failed to provide any evidence to establish the likelihood that he would be hired into the medical profession. Central America Health Sciences University, Belize Medical College v. Norouzian, Docket No. WD66100 (Mo.App. W.D. Sept. 11, 2007) IT IS IMPROPER TO AWARD ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1981, WHEN A CLAIMANT PLEADS AND PROVES RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND NOT RACE-BASED DESCRIMINATION. DAMAGE AWARD TO MEDICAL RESIDENT STUDENT AND DOCTOR BASED UPON ANTICIPATED SALARY WAS SPECULATIVE AND THE EXISTENCE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES ARE NOT REASONABLY CERTAIN. Medical college sued resident student for non-payment of tuition. Resident student counter-claimed for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment and violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981, claiming he was discriminated against, was required to pay a higher tuition rate than contracted and that medical college†s withholding of his diploma delayed his career in the medical profession. After medical school†s attorney withdrew and provided written notice to medical school of trial date, medical school did not appear at the trial date and failed to retain counsel until after a substantial verdict was entered against medical school at the trial date. The court of appeals ruled that it was error for the trial court to award actual and punitive damages against medical school under 42 U.S.C. 1981 because claims based upon national origin and religious discrimination are insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1981. Medical student†s failure to present evidence that he was of Persian ancestry or any other of the many other ethnicities of his country of origin and that his ethnicity and not country of origin was basis of discrimination made an award of damages under 42 U.S.C. 1981 improper. It was also error for the court to award $392,437.50 to the medical student for lost wages, where the student failed to prove his damages were reasonably certain and not speculative. Medical student failed to show that he had or would pass the necessary exams or would be approved by the appropriate licensing body to practice medicine. Lastly, he failed to provide any evidence to establish the likelihood that he would be hired into the medical profession. Central America Health Sciences University, Belize Medical College v. Norouzian, Docket No. WD66100 (Mo.App. W.D. Sept. 11, 2007) City and three hospitals created local ambulance company. Each hospital was granted membership and two Board of Director seats. Two of the hospitals consolidated. Consolidation purported to assign four board seats to the consolidated hospital. Non-consolidating hospital objected. Court ruled that non-profit statutes in effect on date of consolidation expressly prohibits transfer of a membership or any right arising therefrom, even if prior statutes may have permitted transfer of membership interest. Specifically, the court ruled that the transfer of membership contained in the Articles of Consolidation of the two consolidating hospitals could not override R.S.Mo. 355.191.2, in effect on the date of consolidation, which prohibited a transfer of membership in a non-profit public benefit corporation. St. John†s Regional Medical Center v. Freeman Health System, Docket No. 26953, (Mo.App. S.D. Sept. 11, 2007). City and three hospitals created local ambulance company. Each hospital was granted membership and two Board of Director seats. Two of the hospitals consolidated. Consolidation purported to assign four board seats to the consolidated hospital. Non-consolidating hospital objected. Court ruled that non-profit statutes in effect on date of consolidation expressly prohibits transfer of a membership or any right arising therefrom, even if prior statutes may have permitted transfer of membership interest. Specifically, the court ruled that the transfer of membership contained in the Articles of Consolidation of the two consolidating hospitals could not override R.S.Mo. 355.191.2, in effect on the date of consolidation, which prohibited a transfer of membership in a non-profit public benefit corporation. St. John†s Regional Medical Center v. Freeman Health System, Docket No. 26953, (Mo.App. S.D. Sept. 11, 2007). The family of deceased former smoker brought a wrongful death action in Missouri state court against a tobacco company alleging negligence and product defect. The jury awarded the family $2 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages. The compensatory damages were reduced to $500,000 after the jury determined the decedent was 75% responsible for her injuries. The tobacco company argued that the wrongful death suit was precluded by the language of the wrongful death statute because the decedent had previously brought suit in federal court against the tobacco company for the same claims and, accordingly, would be unable to bring suit in state court. The tobacco company†s argument was rooted in the language of the wrongful death statute; it never argued that the wrongful death claim was barred by virtue of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Recognizing it was adopting a minority position, the Court held that the wrongful death statute does not bar a wrongful death action by a decedent†s survivors where the decedent brought a personal injury action during her lifetime for injuries resulting from the same cause of her death. The court noted that: the language of the wrongful death statute requires only that there be some tort for which the defendant could be found liable as opposed to the decedent actually being able to bring suit at the time of injury or death; the manifest purpose of the wrongful death statute is to compensate bereaved plaintiffs; Missouri†s wrongful death statute is an independent cause of action; and the damages recoverable for wrongful death differ from those recoverable in a personal injury action. Thus, it determined a wrongful death statute brought by a decedent†s survivors could not be compromised by a personal injury suit brought by a decedent. The dissent disagreed with this determination. It argued that the majority wrongly interpreted the wrongful death statute. It stated that the plain wording of the statutory language creates a condition for the filing of a wrongful death action by the survivors of a tort victim. In this case, according to the court, that condition was not fulfilled because the decedent, having already resolved her tort claim, would be precluded from bringing another suit against B&W. The tobacco company also argued that insufficient evidence was presented for a jury to find that the decedent did not know of the danger of smoking and that the decedent would have heeded a warning, had a warning been given. The court noted the rebuttable legal presumption that a decedent would have heeded a warning if the decedent knew of the danger. It determined that the presumption arose and that the decedent†s family presented sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that the decedent was injured because the tobacco company failed to warn the decedent of the danger of smoking. The dissent disagreed with this finding. It argued that the family failed to make a submissible case as to causation on the failure to warn claim, because the evidence showed that no warning would have been effective. Thus, according to the dissent, there was no basis for applying a presumption that a warning would have been heeded. Given its finding that insufficient evidence of causation was presented, the dissent determined that a submissible case was not made as to the failure to warn claim; any recovery for that claim was error. The tobacco company claimed that the decedent†s family needed to prove there existed a feasible and safe alternative cigarette design as opposed to the design smoked by the decedent in order to establish strict liability design defect. The court held that such a showing was not necessary because Missouri has rejected the ‽reasonable alternative/risk utility” test and the ‽consumer expectation” test set forth in the Restatements. The tobacco company†s claim was based upon these tests. The tobacco company further claimed that the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that the brand of cigarettes smoked by the decedent was dangerous in a manner different from cigarettes as a general category. The court concluded that sufficient evidence was presented from which the jury could conclude that the brand of cigarettes smoked by the decedent contained more free nicotine than other cigarettes; was intentionally designed to allow the smoker to inhale the smoke more deeply; contained a blend of tobacco intended to ensure certain nicotine delivery; was a highly engineered product; was protected by confidentiality agreements not to disclose trade secrets; contained numerous harmful additives; and contained the most scientifically tested filter in the world. Thus, a jury could conclude that the brand smoked by the decedent was dangerous in a manner different from ordinary cigarettes. The tobacco company argued that the family†s suit was based upon the general health risks of cigarette smoking and that such a suit is preempted by federal law. The court determined that the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the tobacco company made specific design choices that had the potential to negatively impact a smoker†s health. Thus, the suit was based upon specific defects in the design of a particular cigarette, and was not based upon general smoking risks. Accordingly, the suit was not preempted by federal law. One of the claims asserted by the family was that the tobacco company was negligent in failing to warn the decedent of the dangers of smoking. The tobacco company claimed that the dangers of smoking were open and obvious and, accordingly, it did not have a duty to warn the decedent of the dangers. The court noted that the open and obvious exception to the duty to warn in a negligence claim requires a visibly observable open and obvious danger or that the injured person have actual knowledge of the specific danger. The court determined that reasonable minds could differ as to whether public knowledge about the health risks of developing disease and nicotine addiction from smoking cigarettes was so certain and generally known that the tobacco company had no duty to protect a smoker from injury. Thus, the issue was for the jury to decide. The tobacco company also argued that the trial court erred in giving a comparative fault instruction because it had previously withdrawn its comparative fault affirmative defense. The court noted that this issue was recently addressed in Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 207 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). Pursuant to Thompson, because sufficient evidence was presented to support the giving of a comparative fault instruction, it was not error for such an instruction to be given, despite the tobacco company†s withdrawal of its affirmative defense. The jury awarded punitive damages in the amount of $20 million dollars. The issue of punitive damages for: (1) negligent failure to warn; (2) negligent design; and (3) and strict liability product defect were presented to the jury in one verdict director. Thus, it was unclear whether the punitive damages were awarded for one, two, or all three of these claims. Accordingly, the court determined whether a submissible case was made as to punitive damages for each claim. If a submissible case was not made as to one or more of the claims, the court noted that the case would be remanded so that the jury could consider punitive damages only as to the claim for which a submissible case was presented. As to the negligent failure to warn claim, the court determined that a submissible case was not presented for punitive damages to be awarded. It found that insufficient evidence was presented that the tobacco company†s act of manufacturing or selling unreasonably dangerous cigarettes without giving an adequate warning prior to July 1, 1969, was tantamount to intentional wrongdoing. It noted that the evidence demonstrated that the tobacco company was aware that nicotine is addictive and attempted to increase the amount of nicotine in cigarettes so as to make them more addictive and more profitable, yet it consistently denied that cigarettes were harmful and no evidence demonstrated that the tobacco company was insincere in its denial. This evidence was insufficient, according to the court. As to the negligent design claim, the court determined that a submissible case was not presented for punitive damages to be awarded. It found that insufficient evidence was presented that the tobacco company†s act of designing cigarettes containing harmful constituents and failing to use ordinary care to design a safer cigarette was tantamount to intentional wrongdoing where the evidence demonstrated that the tobacco company stopped trying to develop a safer cigarette for fear it would hurt overall sales, but that, regardless, it was not possible to make a safe cigarette. This evidence was insufficient, according to the court. As to the strict liability product defect claim, the court determined that a submissible case was presented warranting punitive damages. It found that sufficient evidence was presented that the tobacco company†s act of manufacturing or selling defective or unreasonably dangerous cigarettes was tantamount to intentional wrongdoing where the evidence demonstrated that the tobacco company: had an active process of creating controversy regarding the health risks of smoking; planned to dispute every Surgeon General†s Report, regardless of its basis; had policies of preventing harmful information from becoming available to the public; and established procedures to ensure negative information did not reach the public. This evidence was sufficient, according to the court. The court remanded the matter to the trial court for a new trial on punitive damages for the strict liability defect claim only. It affirmed the judgment in all other respects. The dissent exercised the authority granted by Article V, section 10 of the Missouri Constitution, and by Rule 83.03 of the Supreme Court Rules and transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. The case has been transferred to the Missouri Supreme Court. The family of deceased former smoker brought a wrongful death action in Missouri state court against a tobacco company alleging negligence and product defect. The jury awarded the family $2 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages. The compensatory damages were reduced to $500,000 after the jury determined the decedent was 75% responsible for her injuries. The tobacco company argued that the wrongful death suit was precluded by the language of the wrongful death statute because the decedent had previously brought suit in federal court against the tobacco company for the same claims and, accordingly, would be unable to bring suit in state court. The tobacco company†s argument was rooted in the language of the wrongful death statute; it never argued that the wrongful death claim was barred by virtue of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Recognizing it was adopting a minority position, the Court held that the wrongful death statute does not bar a wrongful death action by a decedent†s survivors where the decedent brought a personal injury action during her lifetime for injuries resulting from the same cause of her death. The court noted that: the language of the wrongful death statute requires only that there be some tort for which the defendant could be found liable as opposed to the decedent actually being able to bring suit at the time of injury or death; the manifest purpose of the wrongful death statute is to compensate bereaved plaintiffs; Missouri†s wrongful death statute is an independent cause of action; and the damages recoverable for wrongful death differ from those recoverable in a personal injury action. Thus, it determined a wrongful death statute brought by a decedent†s survivors could not be compromised by a personal injury suit brought by a decedent. The dissent disagreed with this determination. It argued that the majority wrongly interpreted the wrongful death statute. It stated that the plain wording of the statutory language creates a condition for the filing of a wrongful death action by the survivors of a tort victim. In this case, according to the court, that condition was not fulfilled because the decedent, having already resolved her tort claim, would be precluded from bringing another suit against B&W. The tobacco company also argued that insufficient evidence was presented for a jury to find that the decedent did not know of the danger of smoking and that the decedent would have heeded a warning, had a warning been given. The court noted the rebuttable legal presumption that a decedent would have heeded a warning if the decedent knew of the danger. It determined that the presumption arose and that the decedent†s family presented sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that the decedent was injured because the tobacco company failed to warn the decedent of the danger of smoking. The dissent disagreed with this finding. It argued that the family failed to make a submissible case as to causation on the failure to warn claim, because the evidence showed that no warning would have been effective. Thus, according to the dissent, there was no basis for applying a presumption that a warning would have been heeded. Given its finding that insufficient evidence of causation was presented, the dissent determined that a submissible case was not made as to the failure to warn claim; any recovery for that claim was error. The tobacco company claimed that the decedent†s family needed to prove there existed a feasible and safe alternative cigarette design as opposed to the design smoked by the decedent in order to establish strict liability design defect. The court held that such a showing was not necessary because Missouri has rejected the ‽reasonable alternative/risk utility” test and the ‽consumer expectation” test set forth in the Restatements. The tobacco company†s claim was based upon these tests. The tobacco company further claimed that the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that the brand of cigarettes smoked by the decedent was dangerous in a manner different from cigarettes as a general category. The court concluded that sufficient evidence was presented from which the jury could conclude that the brand of cigarettes smoked by the decedent contained more free nicotine than other cigarettes; was intentionally designed to allow the smoker to inhale the smoke more deeply; contained a blend of tobacco intended to ensure certain nicotine delivery; was a highly engineered product; was protected by confidentiality agreements not to disclose trade secrets; contained numerous harmful additives; and contained the most scientifically tested filter in the world. Thus, a jury could conclude that the brand smoked by the decedent was dangerous in a manner different from ordinary cigarettes. The tobacco company argued that the family†s suit was based upon the general health risks of cigarette smoking and that such a suit is preempted by federal law. The court determined that the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the tobacco company made specific design choices that had the potential to negatively impact a smoker†s health. Thus, the suit was based upon specific defects in the design of a particular cigarette, and was not based upon general smoking risks. Accordingly, the suit was not preempted by federal law. One of the claims asserted by the family was that the tobacco company was negligent in failing to warn the decedent of the dangers of smoking. The tobacco company claimed that the dangers of smoking were open and obvious and, accordingly, it did not have a duty to warn the decedent of the dangers. The court noted that the open and obvious exception to the duty to warn in a negligence claim requires a visibly observable open and obvious danger or that the injured person have actual knowledge of the specific danger. The court determined that reasonable minds could differ as to whether public knowledge about the health risks of developing disease and nicotine addiction from smoking cigarettes was so certain and generally known that the tobacco company had no duty to protect a smoker from injury. Thus, the issue was for the jury to decide. The tobacco company also argued that the trial court erred in giving a comparative fault instruction because it had previously withdrawn its comparative fault affirmative defense. The court noted that this issue was recently addressed in Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 207 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). Pursuant to Thompson, because sufficient evidence was presented to support the giving of a comparative fault instruction, it was not error for such an instruction to be given, despite the tobacco company†s withdrawal of its affirmative defense. The jury awarded punitive damages in the amount of $20 million dollars. The issue of punitive damages for: (1) negligent failure to warn; (2) negligent design; and (3) and strict liability product defect were presented to the jury in one verdict director. Thus, it was unclear whether the punitive damages were awarded for one, two, or all three of these claims. Accordingly, the court determined whether a submissible case was made as to punitive damages for each claim. If a submissible case was not made as to one or more of the claims, the court noted that the case would be remanded so that the jury could consider punitive damages only as to the claim for which a submissible case was presented. As to the negligent failure to warn claim, the court determined that a submissible case was not presented for punitive damages to be awarded. It found that insufficient evidence was presented that the tobacco company†s act of manufacturing or selling unreasonably dangerous cigarettes without giving an adequate warning prior to July 1, 1969, was tantamount to intentional wrongdoing. It noted that the evidence demonstrated that the tobacco company was aware that nicotine is addictive and attempted to increase the amount of nicotine in cigarettes so as to make them more addictive and more profitable, yet it consistently denied that cigarettes were harmful and no evidence demonstrated that the tobacco company was insincere in its denial. This evidence was insufficient, according to the court. As to the negligent design claim, the court determined that a submissible case was not presented for punitive damages to be awarded. It found that insufficient evidence was presented that the tobacco company†s act of designing cigarettes containing harmful constituents and failing to use ordinary care to design a safer cigarette was tantamount to intentional wrongdoing where the evidence demonstrated that the tobacco company stopped trying to develop a safer cigarette for fear it would hurt overall sales, but that, regardless, it was not possible to make a safe cigarette. This evidence was insufficient, according to the court. As to the strict liability product defect claim, the court determined that a submissible case was presented warranting punitive damages. It found that sufficient evidence was presented that the tobacco company†s act of manufacturing or selling defective or unreasonably dangerous cigarettes was tantamount to intentional wrongdoing where the evidence demonstrated that the tobacco company: had an active process of creating controversy regarding the health risks of smoking; planned to dispute every Surgeon General†s Report, regardless of its basis; had policies of preventing harmful information from becoming available to the public; and established procedures to ensure negative information did not reach the public. This evidence was sufficient, according to the court. The court remanded the matter to the trial court for a new trial on punitive damages for the strict liability defect claim only. It affirmed the judgment in all other respects. The dissent exercised the authority granted by Article V, section 10 of the Missouri Constitution, and by Rule 83.03 of the Supreme Court Rules and transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. The case has been transferred to the Missouri Supreme Court. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2317 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2317&page=34 Address : 4741 Central StreetSuite 200 ,, Phone : 913-491-3000, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2467 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2467&page=35 Address : 1300 North West Jefferson Court, Phone : 816-472-5599, City : Kansas City http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=216 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=216&page=36 Address : 2600 Grand BoulevardSuite 300 ,, Phone : 816-472-6400, City : Kansas City Atlanta - Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, a national labor and employment law firm representing management, proudly announces 16 of the firm†s members (partners) have been named to the 2008 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. More than half have been listed for the past 10 years or more. The Best Lawyers in America is regarded as the premiere referral guide to the legal profession in the United States. Best Lawyers surveys thousands of attorneys in the United States, who confidentially evaluate the legal abilities of their professional peers. More than 4,000 law firms and 1,000 of the world†s largest corporations purchase The Best Lawyers in America guide. Atlanta - Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, a national labor and employment law firm representing management, proudly announces 16 of the firm†s members (partners) have been named to the 2008 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. More than half have been listed for the past 10 years or more. The Best Lawyers in America is regarded as the premiere referral guide to the legal profession in the United States. Best Lawyers surveys thousands of attorneys in the United States, who confidentially evaluate the legal abilities of their professional peers. More than 4,000 law firms and 1,000 of the world†s largest corporations purchase The Best Lawyers in America guide. Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, a national labor and employment law firm representing management and headquartered in Atlanta, is proud to announce Lee E. Boeke and Frank B. Shuster, have been recognized by their peers as Georgia leading practitioners, by being named to Who†s Who Legal: Georgia â€" Management Labor and Employment 2007. Attorneysare selected based on the quantity and quality of nominations they received from other attorneys in their communities. Twenty-six management labor and employment attorneys are recognized in the 2007 edition of Who†s Who Legal: Georgia. Boeke works closely with the firm†s clients providing strategic advice on workplace issues that impact their bottom line. Before joining Constangy, Lee worked as an attorney with the National Labor Relations Board in the Northeast. Following business school and law school, Lee was a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for seven years. Shuster, co-chair of the firm†s labor relations practice, focuses on employment litigation and has extensive experience in National Labor Relations Act and labor arbitrations. Shuster was also recognized by his peers as one of the Best Lawyers in America. Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, a national labor and employment law firm representing management and headquartered in Atlanta, is proud to announce Lee E. Boeke and Frank B. Shuster, have been recognized by their peers as Georgia leading practitioners, by being named to Who†s Who Legal: Georgia â€" Management Labor and Employment 2007. Attorneysare selected based on the quantity and quality of nominations they received from other attorneys in their communities. Twenty-six management labor and employment attorneys are recognized in the 2007 edition of Who†s Who Legal: Georgia. Boeke works closely with the firm†s clients providing strategic advice on workplace issues that impact their bottom line. Before joining Constangy, Lee worked as an attorney with the National Labor Relations Board in the Northeast. Following business school and law school, Lee was a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for seven years. Shuster, co-chair of the firm†s labor relations practice, focuses on employment litigation and has extensive experience in National Labor Relations Act and labor arbitrations. Shuster was also recognized by his peers as one of the Best Lawyers in America. Constangy, Brooks & Smith LLC, a national labor and employment law firm representing management with 13 offices in nine states, is honored to be ranked in the Chambers USA Guide, America†s Leading Lawyers for Business. The firm†s offices inAlabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee are recognized in the 2007 edition of the guide for outstanding skills in representing management in labor and employment law matters. The Chambers USA Guide covers every state in the United States. Top firms and attorneys are ranked on a scale of one to six, with one being the best. The qualities on which rankings are assessed include technical legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness/astuteness, diligence, commitment and other qualities most valued by the client. The Chambers USA Guide ranks over 60 specialist areas of law. In 2006, the Chambers†team of experienced researchers carried out more than 10,000 in-depth interviews with lawyers and clients in order to judge the abilities of the leading practitioners and compile the rankings. Inclusion in this section of the Chambers USA Guide is based solely on the research team's findings. No one can â€~buy their way in†. Several of the firm†s attorneys were also individually listed for their exceptional legal work. These individuals include: Zan Blue, Jr. (Tennessee) Penni P. Bradshaw (North Carolina) Kenneth Carlson (North Carolina) John F. Dickinson (Florida) John J. Doyle Jr. (North Carolina) Robert J. Janowitz (Missouri) Damon F. Kitchen (Florida) W Randolph Loftis, Jr. (North Carolina) Constangy, Brooks & Smith LLC, a national labor and employment law firm representing management with 13 offices in nine states, is honored to be ranked in the Chambers USA Guide, America†s Leading Lawyers for Business. The firm†s offices inAlabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee are recognized in the 2007 edition of the guide for outstanding skills in representing management in labor and employment law matters. The Chambers USA Guide covers every state in the United States. Top firms and attorneys are ranked on a scale of one to six, with one being the best. The qualities on which rankings are assessed include technical legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness/astuteness, diligence, commitment and other qualities most valued by the client. The Chambers USA Guide ranks over 60 specialist areas of law. In 2006, the Chambers†team of experienced researchers carried out more than 10,000 in-depth interviews with lawyers and clients in order to judge the abilities of the leading practitioners and compile the rankings. Inclusion in this section of the Chambers USA Guide is based solely on the research team's findings. No one can â€~buy their way in†. Several of the firm†s attorneys were also individually listed for their exceptional legal work. These individuals include: Zan Blue, Jr. (Tennessee) Penni P. Bradshaw (North Carolina) Kenneth Carlson (North Carolina) John F. Dickinson (Florida) John J. Doyle Jr. (North Carolina) Robert J. Janowitz (Missouri) Damon F. Kitchen (Florida) W Randolph Loftis, Jr. (North Carolina) http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=493 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=493&page=37 Address : 10 South BroadwaySuite 2000 ,, Phone : 314-241-9090, City : Saint Louis http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=955 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=955&page=42 Address : 16141 Swingley Ridge RoadSuite 300, Phone : 636-532-7100, City : Saint Louis http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1571 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1571&page=43 Address : 2730 North Ballas Road, Suite 200P.O. Box 31901 ,, Phone : 314-567-7350, City : Saint Louis http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1608 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1608&page=44 Address : 165 North Meramec Avenue6th Floor ,, Phone : 314-727-2266, City : Saint Louis http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1850 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1850&page=45 Address : 12412 Powerscourt DriveSuite 200 ,, Phone : 314-238-2400, City : Saint Louis http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1898 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1898&page=46 Address : 7700 Bonhomme Avenue7th Floor ,, Phone : 314-727-0101, City : Saint Louis http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1999 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=1999&page=47 Address : 7711 Bonhomme AvenueSuite 400 ,, Phone : 314-726-6670, City : Saint Louis http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2140 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2140&page=48 Address : One Metropolitan Square16th Floor ,, Phone : 314-231-5400, City : Saint Louis Senniger Powers' Associate Julie Jennings co-presented a program on September 18 at the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis on TTAB Rules: Times Are A-Changin'. The program discussed new rules issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office that will significantly affect inter partes proceedings before the TTAB as of August 31, 2007. The rules affect the service of complaints, the timing and manner in which discovery and pretrial information is exchanged between parties in inter partes cases, as well as the protection of confidential information. Ms. Jennings explains that possible implications of the new rules include increased costs and complexity of TTAB proceedings, fewer TTAB proceedings and more federal litigation, and the encouragement of earlier settlements. Click here for a chart summarizing the rule changes. For more information on the rules, contact Julie Jennings. Senniger Powers' Associate Julie Jennings co-presented a program on September 18 at the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis on TTAB Rules: Times Are A-Changin'. The program discussed new rules issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office that will significantly affect inter partes proceedings before the TTAB as of August 31, 2007. The rules affect the service of complaints, the timing and manner in which discovery and pretrial information is exchanged between parties in inter partes cases, as well as the protection of confidential information. Ms. Jennings explains that possible implications of the new rules include increased costs and complexity of TTAB proceedings, fewer TTAB proceedings and more federal litigation, and the encouragement of earlier settlements. Click here for a chart summarizing the rule changes. For more information on the rules, contact Julie Jennings. The Federal Circuit's In Re Seagate Decision Raises the Bar for Patentees Seeking Enhanced Damages. For decades, willful infringement was determined under the duty of due care standard set forth in Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In Judge Dyk's 2004 dissenting opinion in Knorr-Bremse, he described the duty of due care "a relic of the past," and called for its elimination. Since then, significant patent reform activity has occurred on Capital Hill, including efforts to raise the standard for willful infringement. On August 20, 2007, the Federal Circuit beat Congress to the punch with its en banc In Re Seagate opinion. The Federal Circuit limited the availability of enhanced damages to patentees by eliminating the duty of due care and announcing a higher standard for determining willful infringement. Patentees must now satisfy a two-pronged standard to establish the requisite willful infringement needed for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284: (1) First, a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. (2) Second, if the threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer. This important case sprang from a routine discovery dispute centered on whether Seagate waived its attorney client privilege with respect to communications with its trial counsel or waived the protections afforded its trial counsel's work product. In the underlying case, Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp. and Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate elected to rely on the advice of counsel to defend against Convolve's willful infringement allegation. After the complaint was filed, Seagate retained separate counsel to provide an opinion concerning Convolve's patents. Seagate conceded that, by relying on the advice of counsel defense, it had waived the attorney client privilege and work product protections with respect to its opinion counsel. Seagate, however, refused to produce any communications with its separate trial counsel or its trial counsel's work product relating to the same subject matter. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted patentee Convolve's motion to compel the attorney client communications between Seagate and its trial counsel, as well as its trial counsel's work product that was communicated to Seagate. Seagate filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Federal Circuit. Seizing on the opportunity to address the questions left unanswered by its previous Knorr-Bremse and In re Echostar opinions, the Federal Circuit ordered en banc review and invited briefing from the parties and amici curiae on three questions: (1) Should a party's assertion of the advice of counsel defense to willful infringement extend waiver of the attorney-client privilege to communications with that party's trial counsel? (2) What is the effect of any such waiver on work product immunity? (3) Given the impact of the statutory duty of care announced in Underwater Devices, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudson Co., 717 F.2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1983), on the issue of waiver of attorney-client privilege, should this court reconsider the decision in Underwater Devices and the duty of care standard itself? Making quick work of the first two questions-those left unanswered by its Echostar opinion-the Federal Circuit held that asserting the advice of counsel defense and relying on opinion counsel's work product will generally not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work product protection with respect to trial counsel. Warning that it was not setting forth an "absolute rule," the Court noted that waiver could extend to trial counsel in unique circumstances, such as if a party or counsel engages in chicanery. The Federal Circuit's answer to the third question, discussed above, overshadowed the waiver issues resolved by the Court. The ripples of uncertainty resulting from the elimination of the duty of due care and the new "objective recklessness" standard remain to be resolved. For example, in Knorr, the en banc Federal Circuit held that the existence of a substantial defense to infringement is not necessarily sufficient to defeat liability for willful infringement. The Seagate court, however, held that a substantial question about invalidity or infringement sufficient to defeat a preliminary injunction motion would be sufficient to defeat a willfulness charge under the new objective recklessness standard. Another unresolved issue is the continued viability of the totality of the circumstances analysis, including the Read factors, which previously informed the willfulness analysis. But one thing is certain: In re Seagate has raised the bar for patentees seeking enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The Federal Circuit's In Re Seagate Decision Raises the Bar for Patentees Seeking Enhanced Damages. For decades, willful infringement was determined under the duty of due care standard set forth in Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In Judge Dyk's 2004 dissenting opinion in Knorr-Bremse, he described the duty of due care "a relic of the past," and called for its elimination. Since then, significant patent reform activity has occurred on Capital Hill, including efforts to raise the standard for willful infringement. On August 20, 2007, the Federal Circuit beat Congress to the punch with its en banc In Re Seagate opinion. The Federal Circuit limited the availability of enhanced damages to patentees by eliminating the duty of due care and announcing a higher standard for determining willful infringement. Patentees must now satisfy a two-pronged standard to establish the requisite willful infringement needed for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284: (1) First, a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. (2) Second, if the threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer. This important case sprang from a routine discovery dispute centered on whether Seagate waived its attorney client privilege with respect to communications with its trial counsel or waived the protections afforded its trial counsel's work product. In the underlying case, Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp. and Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate elected to rely on the advice of counsel to defend against Convolve's willful infringement allegation. After the complaint was filed, Seagate retained separate counsel to provide an opinion concerning Convolve's patents. Seagate conceded that, by relying on the advice of counsel defense, it had waived the attorney client privilege and work product protections with respect to its opinion counsel. Seagate, however, refused to produce any communications with its separate trial counsel or its trial counsel's work product relating to the same subject matter. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted patentee Convolve's motion to compel the attorney client communications between Seagate and its trial counsel, as well as its trial counsel's work product that was communicated to Seagate. Seagate filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Federal Circuit. Seizing on the opportunity to address the questions left unanswered by its previous Knorr-Bremse and In re Echostar opinions, the Federal Circuit ordered en banc review and invited briefing from the parties and amici curiae on three questions: (1) Should a party's assertion of the advice of counsel defense to willful infringement extend waiver of the attorney-client privilege to communications with that party's trial counsel? (2) What is the effect of any such waiver on work product immunity? (3) Given the impact of the statutory duty of care announced in Underwater Devices, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudson Co., 717 F.2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1983), on the issue of waiver of attorney-client privilege, should this court reconsider the decision in Underwater Devices and the duty of care standard itself? Making quick work of the first two questions-those left unanswered by its Echostar opinion-the Federal Circuit held that asserting the advice of counsel defense and relying on opinion counsel's work product will generally not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work product protection with respect to trial counsel. Warning that it was not setting forth an "absolute rule," the Court noted that waiver could extend to trial counsel in unique circumstances, such as if a party or counsel engages in chicanery. The Federal Circuit's answer to the third question, discussed above, overshadowed the waiver issues resolved by the Court. The ripples of uncertainty resulting from the elimination of the duty of due care and the new "objective recklessness" standard remain to be resolved. For example, in Knorr, the en banc Federal Circuit held that the existence of a substantial defense to infringement is not necessarily sufficient to defeat liability for willful infringement. The Seagate court, however, held that a substantial question about invalidity or infringement sufficient to defeat a preliminary injunction motion would be sufficient to defeat a willfulness charge under the new objective recklessness standard. Another unresolved issue is the continued viability of the totality of the circumstances analysis, including the Read factors, which previously informed the willfulness analysis. But one thing is certain: In re Seagate has raised the bar for patentees seeking enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. In an effort to reduce the backlog of patent applications, the USPTO has promulgated new rules governing continuation practice and limiting the number of claims that will be examined in a patent application. Senniger Powers' Associate Michael Vander Molen provides a summary of these new USPTO rules. Under the new rules, which become effective on November 1, 2007, an applicant is entitled as a matter of right to file two continuation applications and one request for continued examination ("RCE") in each patent family. If the applicant wishes to file any third or more continuation application or second or more RCE, the applicant must first file a petition showing that the amendment, argument, or evidence sought to be entered by way of the continuation or RCE could not have been submitted earlier. Unfortunately, the new rules fail to provide any guidance as to what circumstances would meet the "could not have been submitted" requirement. In addition, the new USPTO rules limit each application to 5 independent claims and 25 total claims unless the applicant submits an Examination Support Document ("ESD"). If an application having more than 5 independent claims or 25 total claims does not include an ESD, the applicant must either amend the claims to meet the 5/25 requirement or submit an ESD to avoid abandonment. According to the rules, an ESD must include a preexamination search statement, a listing of references most closely related to the subject matter of each claim, an identification of claim limitations disclosed by each reference, a detailed explanation of patentability, and a showing of written description support. In response to public comments, the USPTO chose not to adopt several previously proposed rules including a rule requiring that divisional applications must be filed during pendency of the first-filed application and a rule requiring that the applicant must elect "representative" claims. In an effort to reduce the backlog of patent applications, the USPTO has promulgated new rules governing continuation practice and limiting the number of claims that will be examined in a patent application. Senniger Powers' Associate Michael Vander Molen provides a summary of these new USPTO rules. Under the new rules, which become effective on November 1, 2007, an applicant is entitled as a matter of right to file two continuation applications and one request for continued examination ("RCE") in each patent family. If the applicant wishes to file any third or more continuation application or second or more RCE, the applicant must first file a petition showing that the amendment, argument, or evidence sought to be entered by way of the continuation or RCE could not have been submitted earlier. Unfortunately, the new rules fail to provide any guidance as to what circumstances would meet the "could not have been submitted" requirement. In addition, the new USPTO rules limit each application to 5 independent claims and 25 total claims unless the applicant submits an Examination Support Document ("ESD"). If an application having more than 5 independent claims or 25 total claims does not include an ESD, the applicant must either amend the claims to meet the 5/25 requirement or submit an ESD to avoid abandonment. According to the rules, an ESD must include a preexamination search statement, a listing of references most closely related to the subject matter of each claim, an identification of claim limitations disclosed by each reference, a detailed explanation of patentability, and a showing of written description support. In response to public comments, the USPTO chose not to adopt several previously proposed rules including a rule requiring that divisional applications must be filed during pendency of the first-filed application and a rule requiring that the applicant must elect "representative" claims. http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2147 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2147&page=49 Address : 8909 Ladue Road, Phone : 314-991-4999, City : Saint Louis http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2310 http://www.judged.com/jdfirmdetail.php?firmid=2310&page=50