twistadmin

Andrew is an experienced trial attorney who focuses his practice on complex commercial and employment disputes, as well as emerging issues related to digital assets. He has successfully tried cases to resolution in federal and state court, in arbitration, and before administrative bodies.

Prior to joining the firm, Andrew founded the first practice group dedicated exclusively to digital assets and blockchain technology in the Midwest and has represented businesses, developers, and investors across the country in matters related to digital assets and decentralized protocols.

Andrew is an Adjunct Professor at the Washington University School of Law where he teaches Trial Practice and Procedure.

Andrew is an active member and Past President of the St. Louis Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and The Theodore McMillian American Inn of Court.

Representative Matters

As lead counsel, Andrew successfully obtained a jury verdict in a business dispute where the opposing party was found to have fraudulently induced Andrew’s client into a business deal and later tried to retain the profits from the venture. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Andrew’s client on all counts – both on the claims submitted by the client, as well as defendant’s counterclaims. As part of the judgment, the court awarded the client its attorney’s fees.

As lead counsel for the founder of a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol, Andrew obtained the dismissal of a putative class action complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York alleging the founder and co-defendants were members of a general partnership operating an illegal lottery in violation of New York state law. The lawsuit and dismissal were covered in the Wall Street Journal.

Andrew successfully obtained a jury verdict on competing claims for declaratory judgment between former business partners where the client was alleged to have improperly revoked the membership interest of the former partner and breached their fiduciary duties. Andrew drafted the special interrogatories that were submitted to the jury. The jury’s answers to the special interrogatories resulted in the court entering judgment in favor of the client, which included its attorney’s fees.

As lead counsel, Andrew successfully arbitrated a claim between two law firms where a dispute had arisen related to their business relationship. Andrew argued the case before a three-member arbitration panel. The case ultimately settled on confidential terms.

Andrew successfully obtained summary judgment for a local college where plaintiffs alleged that the college failed to protect them against stalking and sexual harassment by a fellow student under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The case was appealed and summary judgment in favor of the client was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pearson v. Logan Univ., 937 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2019).

In a case of first impression, Andrew obtained the reversal of an adverse summary judgment ruling for a client that asserted it was a third-party beneficiary to a contract and entitled to payment for its services. The Court of Appeals found that the client materially changed its position in justifiable reliance on the contract entitling it to payment for its services and reserved the trial court’s summary judgment ruling. Hilliker Corp. v. Watson Prop., LLC, 667 S.W.3d 117 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022).

Andrew successfully defended the State of Missouri when a political action committee and one of its founders brought action against the Missouri Ethics Commission and several of its members, seeking to enjoin a state enforcement proceeding. The federal district court abstained from hearing the case and the decision was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Geier v. Missouri Ethics Comm’n, 715 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 2013).

Andrew obtained summary judgment where the client was alleged to have subjected the plaintiff, a laborer, to a hostile work environment and racial discrimination under Title VII when he was removed from a construction project. The client moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for disparate treatment and because there was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his removal. Furthermore, the client was not plaintiff’s employer as it did not control the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s employment. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the client.

Andrew favorably resolved alleged False Claims Act (FCA) violations against a testing laboratory. After meeting with the United States Attorney’s Office and Missouri Medicaid Audit & Compliance, the client’s license was restated and the FCA violations were resolved pre-suit.