Boston University School of Law,
J.D., magna cum laude, 1999
Editor, Law Review
Edward F. Hennesey Distinguished Scholar
G. Joseph Tauro Scholar
Paul J. Liacos Scholar
Missouri USDC, Eastern District
Missouri USDC, Western District
Illinois USDC, Southern District
US Ct Appeals, 4th Circuit (Covers MD, NC, SC, VA, WV)
US Ct Appeals, 6th Circuit (Covers KY, MI, OH, TN)
US Ct Appeals, 8th Circuit (Covers AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD)
Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America
Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers
Missouri Bar Association
Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis
TracFone Wireless, Inc.
Bunzl USA, Inc.
Charter Communications, Inc.
Thompson Coburn LLP
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Clerk for Chief Judge Carol E. Jackson, 2002-2003
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Clerk for Chief Judge Boyce F. Martin, 2001-2002
Bryan Cave LLP
John handles a wide variety of commercial litigation in state and federal courts across the nation.
John has tried jury trials and bench trials in Missouri, Illinois, New York and other states (involving issues ranging from patent infringement to civil conspiracy). He has briefed and argued appeals in federal and state appellate courts and in the Supreme Court of Missouri.
A first-chair trial lawyer, John is a vigorous and resourceful advocate. He works closely with his clients through all stages of litigation to understand the core issues of each dispute and to develop and deploy litigation strategies to efficiently achieve their goals.
John routinely works with cross-disciplinary legal teams in specialized practice areas. He is adept at understanding industry-specific disputes and persuasively presenting his clients' positions to judges and juries that are not industry experts. John has handled expert witness preparation and trial examination in cases involving, e.g., telecommunications, patent infringement, fiduciary obligations, antitrust, trademark infringement, securities fraud, false advertising, and professional malpractice.
John is a Senior Fellow in the Litigation Counsel of America, a peer-selected honorary society for trial lawyers representing less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers. Fellows are selected based upon excellence and accomplishments in trial work and superior ethical reputation. John is also a member of the Diversity Law Institute, a nonprofit international association of lawyers and law firms committed to diversity in all aspects of the legal profession and justice systems of the United States and Canada.
John is a former law clerk to the Hon. Boyce F. Martin, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and to the Hon. Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Suing on behalf of hundreds of Missouri municipalities, the City of Maryland Heights sought back taxes on TracFone's wholesale and resale sales of prepaid wireless service. TracFone and the class reached a mutually agreeable settlement after TracFone obtained summary judgment against the class on all claims for back taxes on wholesale sales.
Opting out of the class action lawsuit, the City of Springfield likewise sued TracFone for back taxes. In similar tax litigation, Springfield traditionally received a substantial individual-settlement premium in excess of its projected payments as a class member. The TracFone lawsuit proceeded to trial on the issue of damages after TracFone refused to pay Springfield's typical premium.
John sat first chair in the Springfield trial, which was the first in the nation involving an adjudication of the proper methodology for identifying internet access charges among bundled services under the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The final judgment was roughly half of TracFone's last settlement offer (and an amount substantially below the City's projected recovery had it not opted out of the class).
John first-chaired a two week jury trial on behalf of Philadelphia-based SupplyOne, Inc. in Statesville, North Carolina. SupplyOne had been sued by a local manufacturer seeking roughly $4 million dollars for alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract, and fraud. At trial, the jury sided with SupplyOne, finding the defendant was actually owed more than $70,000. After the plaintiff appealed, John successfully argued his client's case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Ultimately, the plaintiff that sued SupplyOne for $4 million was forced to pay SupplyOne more than $350,000.
An Ohio manufacturer sued Bunzl in Toledo, Ohio, for patent infringement. John joined the trial team shortly after the presiding judge found (in the context of a preliminary injunction decision) that there was a "substantial likelihood" that the plaintiff would prevail on its patent claims at trial. After a two-week trial, the jury reached a different conclusion—returning a defense verdict on all eleven counts of plaintiff's patent infringement claim.
Although his focus is commercial litigation, John has at various times represented minority shareholders seeking to exit closely held corporations. In the last three instances, his investigation uncovered management misconduct that artificially depressed the value of his client's ownership interest. In all three instances, after the shareholders filed suit based on the misconduct revealed by John's investigation, their recovery was more than quadruple the originally proposed buyout price. Disclosure of the parties' identities is precluded by the terms of the applicable settlement agreements.
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an ‘engagement letter’).
By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you. Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.