The St. Louis-founded firm grew lawyer head count by nearly 20% in 2025 and exceeded its net income budget by about 10%.       

The federal appellate court affirmed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana requiring an adult plaintiff accused of sexual misconduct in a university Title IX proceeding to litigate under his real name rather than a pseudonym.       

U.S. District Judge Maria A. Lanahan for the Eastern District of Missouri approved a $440,000 settlement resolving a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action brought by health care workers against Midwest Geriatric Management.       

“In its arguments on appeal, law firm is, in essence, asking us to ignore this language within the arbitration agreement because the contract allegedly involves interstate commerce, but this we cannot do,” the state appellate court said.       

Strategic lateral hiring and a focus on cross-selling across the firm led to double-digit increases in revenue and profits at Foley & Lardner in 2025.       

“I think it’s worthwhile that the Seventh Circuit recognizes that there’s something going on and that these aren’t just regular cases,” a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law told Law.com. “We have so few Seventh Circuit decisions that even talk about Schedule A, [and] even fewer presidential ones.”       

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District reversed the Boone County Circuit Court’s $6.14 million judgment for Connie E. Lyda, finding that the ruling improperly stripped Allstate of its statutory right to contest liability and damages under the Revised Statutes of Missouri, Section 537.065.4.       

“If Congress wanted to make clear that ‘seeking admission’ was an independent requirement in the statute, it could have easily done so,” a federal appellate judge wrote on behalf of the majority.       

Clark Hill benefited from strong demand in practices including litigation, corporate, environmental, energy and natural resources and immigration, firm CEO John Hensien said.       

According to the opinion, the case was way more complicated than it needed to be and dragged on because of “excessive damages based on misguided legal theories” in the initial complaint.