Ms. Hoppenjans’ practice will focus on commercial litigation and appellate litigation.

Fellows are selected and invited into Fellowship after being evaluated on effectiveness and accomplishment in litigation and trial work, along with ethical reputation.   The LCA’s selection process is a combination Fellow input, internal research nominations by Fellows, attorney opinions, evaluation of client selection of counsel, limited input from active and retired judges, and reviews of acknowledgement and recognition by other peer reviewing sources and associations.

The purpose of the LCA is to recognize deserving, experienced, and highly qualified lawyers, to provide an outlet for scholarly authorship of legal articles on trial and litigation practice, to provide additional sources for professional development, to promote superior advocacy and ethical standards in the practice of law, to assist in community involvement by its membership, and to advance a superior judiciary, by taking relevant positions on issues or legislation affecting judicial compensation and/or benefits, as well as those affecting the American litigation processes.

American Inns of Court are designed to improve the skills, professionalism and ethics of the bench and bar. An American Inn of Court is an amalgam of judges, lawyers, and in some cases, law professors and law students.  Each Inn meets approximately once a month both to “break bread” and to hold programs and discussions on matters of ethics, skills and professionalism.

Looking for a new way to help lawyers and judges rise to higher levels of excellence, professionalism, and ethical awareness, the American Inns of Court adopted the traditional English model of legal apprenticeship and modified it to fit the particular needs of the American legal system. American Inns of Court help lawyers to become more effective advocates and counselors with a keener ethical awareness. Members learn side-by-side with the most experienced judges and attorneys in their community.

American Inns of Court actively involve more than 25,000 state, federal and administrative law judges, attorneys, legal scholars and law students.

Credit to Finance Monthly

Dowd Bennett was named the joint winner of the Commercial Litigation Law Firm of the Year by The Finance Monthly Law Awards.  The Law Awards celebrate excellence in the profession across private practice, the public sector, commerce, industry, and the Bar. It is unquestionably one of the most distinguished law awards events of the year for the legal profession.

This year recorded the highest number of votes in the awards history. Thousands of entries were received throughout the year. 
The Finance Monthly editorial team conducts a huge research process to supplement the nominations.  Finance Monthly magazine combines the votes along with the research data in finalizing the shortlist and overall winners. The combination of this and Finance Monthly’s own research has made these awards the most comprehensive and incisive reflection of the commercial legal market.

For more information visit www.finance-monthly.com.

On April 5, 2011, Jim Bennett presented argument to the Missouri Supreme Court on behalf of the online travel companies in the case. A recording of the oral argument and the briefs of the parties may be found by visiting the Supreme Court case summary.

On June 28, 2011, the Missouri Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the case against the online travel companies.  The Court’s decision received nationwide media attention, including coverage by Forbes Magazine and MSNBC.

View Related News:

June 28, 2011 Nationwide Media Attention on Missouri Supreme Court Decision in Favor of Online Travel Companies

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with several online travel companies in a dispute over hotel and tourism taxes.

At issue was a lawsuit filed by St. Louis County and the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission against several companies that help with hotel and motel bookings. The companies contract with hotels for discounted prices and then sell the rooms to the public for a higher price while remitting the discounted price to the hotel operator and keeping the remainder. According to court documents, St. Louis County and the commission had argued that the booking companies should pay the taxes for the price difference.

But a unanimous state Supreme Court disagreed Tuesday and ruled for the companies, concluding that they were not required to pay the taxes.

Defendants included companies such as Prestige Travel Inc., Expedia Inc., Hotels.com, Priceline.com and Orbitz Inc. The companies argued, according to court documents, that the taxes applied to hotel or motel operators and that the businesses ran travel websites. The firms said that the difference between the discounted price the businesses got from a hotel and the higher price charged to customers was compensation for the reservation services and not a room charge.

A trial court had dismissed the lawsuit over the tax dispute after a new Missouri law took effect that stated the taxes were limited to the payment received by the hotel operator while stating that travel agents and other intermediaries were not to be considered hotel operators.

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of that law. The court said the online travel companies would not have had an obligation to pay the hotel tax because it was levied only on those operating a hotel or motel. In addition, the state high court said the online travel companies would not have been liable for the tourism tax because they do not provide sleeping rooms and that tax was focused on those who receive payment for use of a sleeping room.

An attorney who represented the companies did not return a call seeking comment. A lawyer who represented St. Louis County and the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission before the state Supreme Court was involved in a case outside of Missouri and not immediately available to comment Tuesday.

Sourced from: Forbes, MSNBC, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

The case is further detailed in the Experience section of our site.

While the Veteran was serving on the U.S.S. Perry during November, 1966, that vessel engaged in operations in the Mekong River Delta and Saigon River. O’Toole established that the U.S.S. Perry was engaged in operations in that area through deck logs maintained aboard that vessel. On the basis of those records, which corroborated the Veteran’s account, together with the fact that the U.S.S. Perry is also among Navy and Coast Guard ships associated with exposure to herbicide agents, the Board found that the Perry was operating on the inland waterways of Vietnam from November 23-28, 1966, and the Veteran therefore served within the Republic of Vietnam. Given his location of service, the Board determined that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange and thus entitled to a presumption that the laryngeal cancer from which he suffered was service-related.

In addition, the Board reversed decisions denying benefits to the Veteran for a back injury suffered on the same vessel. Amazingly, the Board’s decision reversed prior repeated denials of benefits that date all the way back to his original application for benefits in 1967. Needless to say, the decision will have a major impact on the Veteran’s life. On remand to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky, there remains a possibility that the Veteran could be awarded retroactive disability benefits originating from the date of the original denial of benefits in connection with his back injury aboard the U.S.S. Perry.

Dowd Bennett is proud of this pro bono victory earned by Mr. O’Toole and finds it gratifying for the positive outcome to be for the benefit of such a deserving Veteran of the United States Navy.