BSCR Firm News/Blogs Feed

Baker Sterchi Attorneys Recognized by Illinois Super Lawyers 2026

21 Jan 2026

Illinois Super Lawyers 2026 has named Baker Sterchi Members Laura Beasley and Greg Odom to the Super Lawyers list and Members Lee Hurwitz and Meghan Kane to the Rising Stars list. Beasley and Hurwitz are recognized in the Civil Litigation: Defense category, Odom in Class Action/Mass Torts and Kane in Personal Injury General: Defense. All four are experienced trial attorneys based in the firm’s Belleville office.

Beasley focuses her practice on civil defense litigation. She serves on the Association of Defense Trial Attorneys Executive Council, Class of 2027, and is a hearing board officer for the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Beasley also serves as DRI’s Illinois state representative and is a board member of the East St. Louis Bar Association and the St. Clair County Bar Association.

Odom practices in the areas of mass toxic tort and commercial litigation in Illinois and Missouri state and federal courts. He co-chairs Baker Sterchi’s Toxic Tort Practice Group and has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America in the Belleville metropolitan area for mass tort litigation and class actions.

Hurwitz concentrates his practice on toxic tort, product liability, premises liability and trucking matters. He regularly handles insurance defense cases involving personal injury and subrogation claims and has prepared numerous matters for jury trial, including serving as lead trial counsel in multiple verdicts.

Kane focuses her civil defense practice on complex business litigation matters, including product liability, premises liability and toxic torts. She serves as national asbestos and toxic tort counsel for a provider of merchandise displays, refrigeration systems and installation services to food retailers. Kane is second vice president of the Madison County Bar Association and co-chairs Baker Sterchi’s Toxic Tort Practice Group.

Super Lawyers recognizes no more than 5 percent of attorneys in each state based on peer nominations, evaluations and independent research. Rising Stars honors the top 2.5 percent of attorneys who are 40 or younger or in practice for 10 years or less.

Paul Venker and Teresa Young Recognized on 2026 MLM POWER List of Appellate Attorneys

16 Jan 2026

For the sixth consecutive year, Baker Sterchi attorneys Paul Venker and Teresa Young have earned recognition on Missouri Lawyers Media’s POWER List of Appellate Attorneys.

The POWER List features the most powerful appellate attorneys in Missouri as identified by the Missouri Lawyers Media editorial team after reviewing published appellate opinions, interviewing attorneys and other leaders around the state, and examining Missouri Lawyers Weekly archives.

Venker’s practice has always focused on trials and appeals. He has taken dozens of trials to verdict in a variety of cases ranging from employment discrimination and medical malpractice to product liability and other serious personal injury and general liability matters. He has been an active appellate lawyer since clerking at the Missouri Supreme Court.

Young has extensive experience in the areas of insurance defense, insurance coverage, and appeals. Her appellate experience has been utilized by trial counsel at every level of litigation, from drafting dispositive motions and presenting interlocutory appeals, to drafting appeals and arguing their case before appellate courts. Young is a co-chair of the firm's Trial & Appellate Practice Group.

Emily O'Connor Named a 2026 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow

14 Jan 2026

Emily O’Connor has been named a 2026 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Fellow. O’Connor is an associate in Baker Sterchi’s Belleville office.

She will participate in the yearlong LCLD Fellows program, which provides leadership development and relationship-building opportunities for mid-career attorneys at member corporations and law firms. Fellows are nominated by their law firms or corporate legal departments and typically have eight to 15 years of practice experience.

O’Connor’s practice includes representing railroads in Federal Employers’ Liability Act cases; representing businesses and insurance companies in premises liability, product liability and personal injury matters; handling employment-related matters, including workers’ compensation; and representing governmental entities, including county departments and agencies, municipalities and port districts. She is a member of DRI’s Employment and Labor Law Committee, Workers’ Compensation Committee and Women in the Law Committee, as well as the National Association of Railroad Trial Counsel. O’Connor earned her law degree from Northern Illinois University College of Law and is licensed to practice law in Illinois and Missouri.

The Leadership Council on Legal Diversity is an organization composed of corporate chief legal officers and law firm managing partners that offers leadership and professional development programming.

The Best Part of Waking Up Is … Different Amounts of Folgers in Your Cup?

08 Jan 2026

ABSTRACT: The Eighth Circuit recently rejected class certification in the Folgers serving-size labeling litigation (In re: Folders Coffee Marketing), finding that consumers vary widely in whether they read the labels, how they interpret the serving instructions and how strong they prefer their coffee. The Court, in Smith v. The Folger Coffee Co., emphasized that the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act does not allow consumers who suffered no loss to “piggyback” on the alleged injuries of others, making the proposed class inappropriate, and found class certification inappropriate under the proposed unjust enrichment and price premium theories.

If you’ve ever looked at a coffee can and wondered whether “makes up to 240 cups” is optimistic marketing or a real-world promise, the Eighth Circuit just brewed a strong take on that very question. Recently, the Eighth Circuit rejected class certification in the Folgers serving-size labeling litigation, finding that consumers vary widely in whether they read the labels, how they interpret the serving instructions and how strong they prefer their coffee. In Smith v. The Folger Coffee Co., in which a Missouri consumer challenged Folgers (and its parent, The J.M. Smucker Company) over those cup-count labels, trying to do so on behalf of a class of Missouri buyers, the Court emphasized that the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) does not allow consumers who suffered no loss to “piggyback” on the alleged injuries of others, making the proposed class inappropriate.

Missouri resident Mark Smith bought Folgers products that touted how many six-ounce cups each container could yield and sued under the MMPA and for unjust enrichment, claiming the cup counts were deceptive. His case was part of a bundle of similar lawsuits transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Western District of Missouri for pretrial coordination, where the parties filed a consolidated complaint and sought six statewide classes, with the Missouri class teed up first.

One label example got a lot of airtime: Folgers Classic Coffee Roast, 30.5 ounces, which announced in all caps that it “Makes up to 240 6 fl oz cups.” The side panel gave two brewing options—a Single-Serving Method (six fluid ounces of water with one tablespoon of coffee) and a Pot Method (sixty fluid ounces of water with half a cup, i.e., eight tablespoons)— the court noted the Pot Method is more efficient for producing ten six-ounce cups than making ten single servings. Mr. Smith questioned both, but focused his ire on the single serving method, claiming it only brewed about 70% of the cups promised. In other words, he and others were not getting the benefit of their bargain with their Folgers.

Specifically, Smith alleged that Folgers was unjustly enriched at the proposed classes’ expense due to a shortage of the represented number of six-ounce cups in each container. In other words, under the MMPA, Smith claimed that Folgers’ representations about the number of cups that could be brewed with its coffee products at issue violated the MMPA because they are “false, deceptive, and misleading.”

The district court certified a class for Smith to represent, made up of individuals who bought certain Folgers products “in Missouri for personal, family, or household purposes.” Folgers appealed the decision, and the Eighth Circuit agreed with the Folgers Defendants that the class was improperly certified. The Eighth Circuit cited the familiar standard that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), the class certification requirement of “predominance” is “demanding” and asks whether common questions are cohesive enough to justify classwide treatment. This requirement is not, however, satisfied when individual questions would overwhelm the questions common to the class. The Court also noted that fraud cases are typically unsuitable for class treatment due to the type of proof required (e.g. representations received and whether there was reliance), which usually affects the predominance of common questions requirement.

The MMPA creates a cause of action for damages for “[a]ny person who purchases . . . merchandise primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and thereby suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person” of an unlawful practice. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.025.1(1). An unlawful practice includes “[t]he act, use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, [or] unfair practice . . . in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce.” See id. § 407.020.1.

The MMPA is friendlier to consumers than common-law fraud in one respect—it doesn’t require traditional reliance—but the statute still insists on a causal link between the unlawful practice and an “ascertainable loss.” Simply, you must show the supposed deception actually cost you something, not just that you bought a product with a debatable label. Here, the Court leaned on its established reading of the MMPA to emphasize causation and ascertainable loss as essential elements.

The Court further recognized that class certification was not appropriate, explaining that many buyers might not have noticed the “makes up to” claim; others may have noticed but not cared; still others might have read the statement as conditional—achievable sometimes, under certain brewing conditions—or believed different methods would get them there; plus, preferences for weaker coffee could mean some purchasers got exactly what they bargained for. The record even had testimony from proposed class representatives in other states showing the label did not influence their purchases (one kept buying because “I like my coffee”), which the Court found relevant to predominance—proof that taste, not label lore, often drives the morning routine. Ultimately, deciding who was deceived and who suffered an actual loss would require customer-by-customer inquiries, which undercuts classwide efficiency and does not satisfy the “predominance” requirement.

The Court also considered whether the certification was proper under the “price-premium” theory. Smith argued that even if only some people were misled, the label inflated demand and raised prices, so everyone paid an overcharge. The Eighth Circuit rejected that argument, relying on previous decisions rejecting “piggyback” injuries and predicted the Missouri Supreme Court, if the question was presented to it, would reject market-wide price-inflation theories as a substitute for proving causation and ascertainable loss. Indeed, accepting that approach, the court warned, would effectively erase the MMPA’s loss requirement and let even fully informed buyers sue.

Smith’s unjust enrichment theory did not fare any better. Whether it is “unjust” for a seller to keep a benefit depends on the particulars of each transaction—what the buyer saw, believed, and expected, and what they actually received—so those claims, too, tend to splinter into individualized questions, making them poor candidates for class treatment. Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit’s decision makes clear that uniform packaging does not automatically equal uniform answers under Rule 23 and that greatly affects the strength of a proposed classes’ brewing claims.

In this type of litigation, this decision makes clear that plaintiffs will need to build rigorous, classwide proof – not just that a label appeared on every can, but that a significant portion of the class encountered it in a similar way, understood it similarly, and suffered similar, measurable losses that can be calculated without devolving into one-by-one mini-trials. Defendants, on the other hand, should be able to utilize this decision to challenge a proposed class, highlighting the wide range of consumer experiences—what buyers saw, how they brewed, what they expected, whether they cared—and stress how those differences matter to causation and damages. In other words, when it comes to “makes up to” claims (at least in the Eighth Circuit), the best part of waking up (for class-action defendants) may be that what ends up in each consumer’s cup is simply too individualized for one pot to handle.

Baker Sterchi Elevates Grant Henderson and Tom Kammerer to Member

07 Jan 2026

Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC is pleased to announce the elevation of Grant Henderson and Tom Kammerer to Member, effective Jan. 1, 2026.

Based in the firm’s Kansas City office, Henderson focuses his practice on insurance coverage litigation, bad faith, professional liability and catastrophic injury claims. He is a member of the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association and the Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers. Henderson earned his law degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law and holds an undergraduate degree from Missouri State University. He is licensed to practice law in Missouri.

Kammerer is based in the firm’s St. Louis office and focuses his practice on first- and third-party insurance defense, premises liability, property damage, personal injury, transportation and subrogation matters. He is a member of the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, Claims and Litigation Management Alliance and the Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers. Kammerer earned his law degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law and holds an undergraduate degree from Truman State University. He is licensed to practice law in Missouri and Illinois.

Baker Sterchi Adds Senior Attorney Jessica Reis in St. Louis

23 Dec 2025

Baker Sterchi has added Jessica Reis as a senior attorney in the firm’s St. Louis office.

Her practice focuses on environmental and employment law, contract litigation, e-discovery and litigation readiness. She represents clients in regulatory and commercial matters.

A certified e-discovery specialist, Reis is a member of the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists. She earned her law degree and undergraduate degree from Saint Louis University and is licensed to practice in Missouri and Illinois.

Before joining Baker Sterchi, Reis practiced in Missouri, handling a range of civil litigation matters.

Greg Odom Appointed Secretary-Treasurer of Illinois Defense Counsel

23 Dec 2025

Baker Sterchi Member Greg Odom has been appointed secretary-treasurer of the Illinois Defense Counsel (IDC), a statewide civil defense organization, following the group’s December board meeting. He will also serve on the IDC Executive Committee and will advance through the organization’s officer positions, culminating in his term as president in June 2029.

Odom has been an active member of the Illinois Defense Counsel since 2013 and has served in a variety of leadership roles, including on its Board of Directors and Toxic Torts Committee. He also writes and edits for the IDC’s annual Survey of Law.

Based in the firm’s Belleville office, Odom is a trial attorney focusing on mass toxic tort and commercial litigation in Illinois and Missouri state and federal courts. He co-chairs Baker Sterchi’s Toxic Tort Practice Group and has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America in the Belleville metropolitan area for mass tort litigation and class actions.

Hallie Campbell-Roos Joins Baker Sterchi in Seattle

17 Dec 2025

Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC is pleased to announce that Hallie Campbell-Roos has joined the firm’s Seattle office as an associate. Campbell-Roos focuses her practice on civil litigation matters, including civil rights, municipal liability, personal injury and insurance defense.

Campbell-Roos earned her law degree from Seattle University School of Law and her undergraduate degree from the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. She is licensed to practice in Washington. While in law school, Campbell-Roos served as a mentor for Women’s Law Caucus, secretary of the Privacy Law student organization and completed a semester-long internship at the Estate and Disability Planning Clinic.

Megan Stumph-Turner Appears on The Legal Growth Podcast

16 Dec 2025

Baker Sterchi Member Megan Stumph-Turner recently appeared as a guest on The Legal Growth Podcast, hosted by Aaron Fulk. The podcast explores strategies, challenges and experiences shaping the future of law firms.

During the episode, titled “Megan Stumph-Turner on Authentic Growth, Humor in Law, and Navigating AI’s Ethical Edge,” Stumph-Turner discussed professional growth, the importance of authenticity and the evolving role of technology in today’s legal landscape. She shared how graduating during the 2008 financial crisis influenced her career path and how relationships have played a central role in building her practice. The conversation also addressed the value of humor, empathy and adaptability, along with ethical considerations surrounding the responsible use of artificial intelligence in legal practice.

Based in the firm’s Kansas City office, Stumph-Turner focuses her practice on civil litigation, including creditors’ rights, financial services, real estate, construction and commercial litigation. She chairs the firm’s Financial Services and Real Estate Practice Groups. She also serves on the steering committees for ALFA International’s Business Litigation and Women’s Initiative Practice Groups and is the immediate past president and a current board member of the Earl E. O’Connor American Inn of Court.

Stumph-Turner is a prior recipient of the Missouri Lawyers Media (MLM) Women’s Justice Award for litigation practitioners and was named to the 2025 MLM Commercial and Consumer Law POWER list. She is recognized by The Best Lawyers in America for commercial and real estate litigation and by Missouri and Kansas Super Lawyers. She is licensed to practice in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska.

Access the episode here.

Paul Venker Named to Missouri Lawyers Media 2025 Top 100 POWER List

11 Dec 2025

Baker Sterchi attorney Paul Venker has been named to Missouri Lawyers Media’s 2025 Top 100 POWER List. This marks the fourth consecutive year he has been included. A longtime appellate lawyer whose career began with a clerkship at the Missouri Supreme Court, he has handled trials and appeals across a range of civil litigation matters.

Missouri Lawyers Media highlights the state’s most powerful attorneys throughout the year across practice areas including appellate law, business defense, employment and intellectual property. At the end of the year, the publication’s editorial team reviews those profiles to compile its list of the Top 100 attorneys in Missouri and surrounding metro areas.

Venker received Missouri Lawyers Media’s Influential Appellate Advocates Award in 2017 and has appeared on the publication’s POWER List of Appellate Attorneys for the past five years.