Lindsay S. C. Brinton

Eight New Associates Join Lewis Rice

Lewis Rice is pleased to announce eight new associates in its St. Louis office: Carrie Bennett, Emma Bruntrager, Matthew Hemmersmeier, Phoebe Leach, Darrwin Perkins II, Alexi-Julia Smith, Lawson Tyrone and M. Thomas Yang. “We’re excited to welcome this very talented group of attorneys to join Lewis Rice,” said Chairman Richard B. Walsh Jr. “They strengthen our client advocacy and bring valuable experience from the courts, government and private practice. Their skills and dedication will serve our clients well and support our firm for years to come.” Carrie Bennett is an associate in Lewis Rice’s Litigation Department. She spent 18 years as a teacher, counselor and literacy specialist, and that experience shapes her attentive, client-focused approach. She graduated cum laude from Saint Louis University School of Law, where she completed a judicial internship at the Missouri Court of Appeals. She spent both of her law school summers with Lewis Rice. Emma Bruntrager joins the firm’s Litigation Department from the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, where she held several roles. She served as senior law clerk to Judge Renee D. Hardin-Tammons and as term law clerk to Judge Christian M. Stevens. At Saint Louis University School of Law, she held a faculty fellowship and completed a judicial externship with Judge James M. Dowd. Matthew Hemmersmeier practices in Lewis Rice’s Corporate Department after two summers with the firm as a summer associate. He completed the dual J.D. and LL.M. in Taxation program at Washington University School of Law. He also served as executive notes editor of the Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, which published his article on the Corporate Transparency Act. Phoebe Leach counsels clients on estate and gift tax matters in the firm’s Estate Planning Department. She comes to Lewis Rice from a clerkship with Judge Mark V. Holmes of the U.S. Tax Court. At Georgetown University Law Center, she served as chief executive editor of the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy and externed for U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt. Darrwin Perkins II is an associate in the Corporate Department and spent both law school summers with the firm. At Saint Louis University School of Law, he earned a concentration in health law, served as editor-in-chief of the Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy and completed a legal externship with BJC HealthCare. Alexi-Julia Smith represents buyers and sellers in mergers and acquisitions, private equity deals and other strategic transactions in Lewis Rice’s Corporate Department. After earning her law degree from Howard University School of Law, she practiced in the Washington, D.C., office of Goodwin Procter LLP. There she advised private equity sponsors and portfolio companies on domestic and cross-border deals. She has now returned to her hometown of St. Louis. Lawson Tyrone focuses on construction law in the firm’s Corporate Department. Before law school, he worked in project management for JE Dunn Construction in Austin, Texas, including on Apple Inc.’s corporate campus. He served as articles editor of the Journal of Food Law & Policy at the University of Arkansas School of Law and spent both of his law school summers at Lewis Rice. M. Thomas Yang joins Lewis Rice’s Litigation Department after spending his law school summers with the firm. At the University of Missouri School of Law, he was senior note and comment editor for the Missouri Law Review and won the 2025 Guy A. Thompson Award for Best Student Note. As a student advocate in the Mizzou Law Veterans Clinic, he helped draft briefs supporting veterans’ disability appeals before the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Brian Pezza Honored as a Leader in the Law at 2026 Illinois Legal Leaders Awards

Lewis Rice member Brian P. Pezza has been named a Leaders in the Law honoree at the 2026 Illinois Legal Leaders Awards, presented by Missouri Lawyers Media. The recognition highlights Brian’s contributions to the practice of law in Illinois and to the legal and broader communities in the southern Illinois region. As Practice Group Leader of Lewis Rice’s Labor & Employment Practice Group, Brian works with executives and human resources professionals to develop practical, preventive strategies for managing workplace challenges, compliance obligations, and litigation risk. Based in the Firm’s St. Louis and Edwardsville, Illinois, offices, he counsels employers ranging from Fortune 20 corporations and national banks to small businesses and public entities. Much of Brian’s practice centers on helping employers handle complex medical leave and reasonable accommodation matters under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including guiding clients through the ADA’s interactive process. He also advises on handbooks, employee classification, and union contract negotiations, and regularly leads on-site training for management and HR teams on topics such as medical leave and harassment prevention. For clients in heavy industrial, manufacturing, and construction sectors, he advises on workplace safety and health programs, conducts incident investigations, and manages responses to OSHA inquiries. When disputes arise, Brian defends employers in state and federal courts, administrative investigations, and government audits. Brian is admitted to practice in Missouri, Illinois, and Massachusetts. In Edwardsville, he served three years on the City of Edwardsville Human Relations Committee and has been the president of the Board of Directors of Opera Edwardsville since 2020. He has also sung with the St. Louis Symphony Chorus since 2008 and is a member of its Choir Advisory Committee. The Illinois Legal Leaders program celebrates attorneys and judges who have shaped the legal community and advanced the practice of law across southern Illinois. Brian was recognized during the awards ceremony on September 29, 2026, at the Missouri Athletic Club in St. Louis.

Federal Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Polk County, Iowa, Landowners Whose Property was Taken by the Federal Government

Lindsay S.C. Brinton and Meghan S. Largent, attorneys from Lewis Rice’s Federal Takings & Rails to Trails Practice, filed a case in the United States Court of Federal Claims on behalf of 29 landowners in Polk County, Iowa, on Aug. 7, 2026. The lawsuit alleges that the federal government owes the landowners compensation for their property that it authorized for public trail use. The federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued an order called a Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment on July 31, 2026. This authorizes the cities of Des Moines, West Des Moines, Windsor Heights, Urbandale, Clive and Grimes to convert the abandoned 12.2-mile Norfolk Southern railway corridor known as the Grimes Line into a public hiking and biking trail. Because converting the rail line to a public trail is not authorized under Iowa law, the cities sought permission from the STB to acquire the rail line from Norfolk Southern Railway so the land could be put to public use. The STB granted that request, which gave rise to the landowners’ lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that Norfolk Southern does not own the land underlying its rail corridor, but rather has operated the railroad across the land pursuant to century-old easements. Once the railroad is abandoned, those easements would have ceased to exist. “Pursuant to the National Trails System Act, the federal government has the constitutional authority to take these landowners’ property for conversion to a public-access recreational trail and preservation of a railroad easement,” Meghan said. “However, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the federal government to pay the landowners for the value of their property taken.” The lawsuit asks the Court to compensate each landowner for the fair market value of the property that will now be encumbered by the public recreational trail easement. The lawsuit is only against the federal government and makes no claims against Norfolk Southern Railway nor the cities involved in the transaction. The lawsuit does not aim to stop the transfer of the railroad property to the cities for a public trail nor does it seek to impact the funding for the proposed trail in any way. More than 200 landowners are currently eligible to make a claim for compensation. Lindsay and Meghan are continuing to add landowners to this case and plan to reach out to more along the corridor in the coming weeks. Lewis Rice's federal takings attorneys represent landowners throughout the United States pursuing takings claims against the federal government. One primary focus of the group is representing landowners in what is commonly referred to as rails to trails takings. Attorneys in this group litigate cases in the United States Court of Federal Claims on behalf of those whose property was taken by the federal government pursuant to the National Trails System Act, which authorizes abandoned railroad lines to be converted to public parks. The goal is to obtain compensation from the government for the taking of their land for the public recreational trail. The attorneys in the Federal Takings Practice Group focus on both proving the taking has occurred as well as establishing the value of the property that was taken. Their national work for landowners includes representing landowners coast-to-coast, including 11 states.

Data Centers and Local Zoning in the St. Louis Region: A Patchwork Takes Shape

Data center development has become a hot-topic in local news cycles, and a significant land-use issue for developers in the St. Louis metropolitan region. As demand for artificial intelligence and cloud infrastructure grows, local governments are beginning to respond to increased development activity and mounting voter concern regarding issues like electricity demand and grid capacity, water consumption, air and noise impacts from backup generators and cooling equipment, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and appropriate setbacks and screening requirements. There is currently no uniform approach to local zoning and regulation of data center development – instead there is a patchwork of varied approaches being rolled out by local municipalities and governments across the region. The City of St. Louis has enacted detailed zoning standards and set restrictions on municipal tax incentives, while St. Louis County is still actively considering newly proposed regulations. Several municipalities in St. Charles County have adopted bans or temporary moratoria. Metro East municipalities are beginning to consider the impacts of proposed projects. At this point, a development that appears viable in one municipality may be subject to entirely different restrictions a short distance away. For developers, investors, landowners, lenders, and utilities, the consequence of the lack of uniform regulation is that data center development must be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. Factors like existing restrictions, proposed legislation, local approval procedures, utility capacity, and development costs should all be considered before finalizing land acquisition or other substantial commitments. It is critical to consult with counsel in the early stages of development to ensure that there is a smooth pathway towards zoning and local regulatory approval. Recent Developments To illustrate the emerging patchwork, the below summarizes key recent developments in local markets that developers, investors, landowners, lenders, and utilities should be aware of: City of St. Louis The City of St. Louis recently enacted Ordinance 72181 (Board Bill No. 49), effective September 17, 2026, adding Chapter 26.77 to its Zoning Code. The ordinance creates separate micro, standard, and major data center categories, and its use table requires conditional use approval in eligible districts. Major data centers are limited to the K Unrestricted District, while smaller classifications have additional district options. The classification of a proposed facility, zoning district, and required approval process therefore should be determined at the outset of a project. Chapter 26.77 also establishes development and operating requirements. Among other provisions, the ordinance prescribes minimum separation distances from specified surrounding properties; addresses noise, cooling and backup generation building specs; and requires disclosure of certain utility and infrastructure information with an application. Standard and major data centers face renewable-energy benchmarks, and major facilities also require a Public Impact Agreement, requiring approval by the Board of Public Service and a two-thirds vote of the Board of Aldermen before issuance of a building permit. These requirements may materially affect site design, expense, and timing. The City simultaneously enacted Ordinance 72182, restricting local tax incentives for data centers. The availability of public incentives should therefore be investigated separately from the question whether a project may receive zoning approval. St. Louis County The St. Louis County Department of Planning has been developing data-center-specific standards for unincorporated portions of the County. Its existing Zoning Ordinance did not contain a defined data center use category or tailored standards when the Department initiated its review. Public hearings occurred on May 11 and August 10, 2026, followed by an October 5 Planning Commission work session and executive meeting. On October 19, 2026, the Commission recommended a four-tier regulatory framework to the County Council, including proposed setbacks of up to 500 feet for the largest facilities and standards addressing energy consumption, water usage, noise, and ongoing compliance. The County Council has not yet adopted the proposed framework, but developers evaluating property in the area should be aware that more detailed data center development regulation is forthcoming. City of St. Charles In May 2026, the St. Charles City Council voted 7-1 to adopt a zoning prohibition on data centers, following substantial opposition to the then-proposed approximately $1 billion “Project Cumulus” development. This recent development bans zoning approvals in all of the city’s zoning districts, the most extreme new regulation that we have seen thus far. St. Charles County In July 2026, the St. Charles County Council adopted a six-month moratorium on large-scale data centers to evaluate utility, water, and related effects. The County’s explanatory materials describe the affected category as projects demanding more than five megawatts, occupying more than 100,000 square feet, or comprising multiple buildings operating together. The County has indicated that it invoked public health and environmental authority to reach incorporated areas as well as unincorporated property. Public hearings on the matter will begin this fall. Wentzville Similarly, the Wentzville Board of Aldermen separately approved a six-month moratorium in October 2026 while evaluating electrical infrastructure and water resources. St. Peters St. Peters also adopted a temporary restriction: Ordinance 8319, approved May 14, 2026, which provides for a moratorium of up to one year on specified development applications involving information-technology and data-processing facilities while the City reviews standards. The moratorium temporarily restricts the City's consideration of covered development applications, subject to certain exceptions. Metro East (Illinois) Finally, the Metro East area has begun to enact restrictions. Troy, Illinois, adopted Ordinance 2026-24 in March 2026, imposing a temporary data center moratorium, and Ordinance 2026-57 in September extending the moratorium for an additional six months. Godfrey also recently extended its moratorium on data center applications in August 2026. Granite City and Edwardsville have not recently approved any new data center projects and may also be considering enacting zoning updates to address data center concerns. Key Takeaways for Developers, Investors, and Property Owners Local regulation and zoning approvals for proposed data center developments are currently a moving target, with significant variation between municipalities and counties and overlapping requirements imposed by each in some instances. It will be critical to confirm whether property is inside an incorporated municipality, whether a countywide measure also applies, and whether any proposed annexation or pending zoning change could alter the applicable rules. Consult with counsel early in the project development process to help review operative law and any potential changes. Qualified counsel will be able to help you verify use classification, conditional use requirements, size or power thresholds, exceptions, effective dates, and expiration provisions. Factor infrastructure and mitigation obligations into your consideration of project costs. Utility commitments, water supply, setbacks, cooling systems, renewable-energy obligations, and public-impact arrangements may shape both underwriting and deal timing. Land-use approval may not ensure the availability of tax incentives or project feasibility once compliance with operational and design requirements have been met. Work with counsel to reconfirm status at acquisition, application, and closing. Several jurisdictions are still drafting rules or operating under time-limited moratoria, and a project schedule can span material changes in the legal landscape. Lewis Rice is well-versed in navigating the complexities of local regulatory requirements and zoning approval processes for large data center projects. The group is staying up to date on developing rules and proposals and is available to help clients determine the feasibility of project approval.

Unconstitutional Usurpation of Power: An Evaluation of the Corporate Transparency Act’s Potential Demise Under National Small Business United v. Yellen

Matthew R. Hemmersmeier examines the constitutional arguments at issue regarding the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and how the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama reached its conclusion in National Small Business United v. Yellen that the CTA, as applied to the Plaintiffs, should be struck down as an unconstitutional usurpation of federal power. Click under "Resources" below to read the full article.

Business Attorneys' Guide to AI and IP Rights in Transactions

Actionable Guidance for Everyday Transactional Practice "Who owns the output when a business uses a third-party AI tool?" "What are the trade secret implications of employees' unauthorized use of consumer-level AI like ChatGPT?" "What is negotiable in AI vendor contracts, and how can we boost our leverage?" Your business clients are wrestling with a storm of new questions regarding AI that has permeated all aspects of law and business. And current regulatory and legal guidance is patchy at best. Do you have the critical IP knowledge to advise them in this rapidly changing market? This course breaks down the arcane concepts of IP and the technical jargon of AI to offer practical legal guidance for strengthening contracts and helping businesses protect their work product and trade secrets. Help your clients thrive in the brave new AI world. Abbreviated Agenda What Clients Are Actually Doing With AI - And Why It Creates Legal Work Where the Legal Risk Actually Is: AI Regulation, Liability, and Exposure Who Owns AI Output - and When It Matters Contracts in the Age of AI: Drafting for Clients Who Use or Build AI AI Due Diligence in M&A Transactions AI Governance and Trade Secret Protection Legal Ethics in Daily AI Use Click here for more information and to download this webinar.

California Legislature Eliminates Private Right of Action for Certain Claims Under CIPA

On September 30, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 690 (“SB 690”), which the California Legislature unanimously passed on August 28, 2026. The new law, which will take effect on January 1, 2027, eliminates the private right of action for online pen register and trap and trace claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). Although SB 690 marks a substantial change to the CIPA landscape, which has been flooded with claims in recent years, it does not provide complete relief to companies that use commonplace online tracking technologies like cookies. Rather, the law shifts enforcement from private plaintiffs to the California Attorney General. Further, plaintiffs may try to challenge the same tracking technologies under other provisions of CIPA or other laws. Background CIPA was originally enacted in 1967. It prohibits any interception or recording of confidential communications of another without their consent. Broadly speaking, the law prohibits wiretapping, eavesdropping, the recording of private communications, and the use of pen registers or trap and trace devices. As relevant to SB 690, Section 638.51 of CIPA prohibits the installation or use of a pen register or trap and trace device without having first obtained a court order or consent. CIPA’s civil enforcement provision, Section 637.2, provides statutory damages of $5,000 per violation plus three times the amount of actual damages, if any, that a plaintiff sustains. Prior to the enactment of SB 690, CIPA provided individuals with a direct cause of action against any private actor for violations of the law. Over the past few years, the number of CIPA pen register and trap and trace lawsuits has exploded. Plaintiffs have used CIPA’s private right of action to threaten and/or bring thousands of claims, including class action lawsuits, against companies. By and large, these claims argue that companies violated CIPA’s prohibition on pen register and trap and trace devices through their use of common online tracking technologies, including cookies, third-party pixels, website analytics, and similar technologies. Plaintiffs typically allege that such technologies are pen registers or trap and trace devices and that companies violate Section 638.51 by using those technologies without a court order or consent. Plaintiffs in these actions seek the statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, which is the maximum amount recoverable without showing actual damages. Courts have determined that CIPA applies so long as the internet user is within California, meaning that companies based outside of California may still be subject to CIPA liability. Key Changes Effective January 1, 2027, SB 690 amends CIPA’s civil enforcement provision, resulting in two major changes.  Private plaintiffs can no longer file pen register and trap and trace claims for conduct occurring on an internet website, online application, or mobile application. Only the California Attorney General may bring such claims.  SB 690 is retroactive to January 1, 2025. Any lawsuit filed by a private plaintiff on or after January 1, 2025 that alleges an unlawful pen register or trap and trace device in connection with an internet website, online application, or mobile application will be barred. Cases filed prior to January 1, 2025 are left unaffected, as are civil enforcement claims brought by the California Attorney General. What SB 690 Has Not Changed Although the elimination of the private right of action for certain pen register and trap and trace claims is a major development that will bar many threatened and pending lawsuits, SB 690 is not a complete overhaul of CIPA.  Online pen registers and trap and trace devices are still illegal without a court order or consent. SB 690 only shifts the enforcement to the California Attorney General.  Plaintiffs still have a private right of action for wiretapping claims or eavesdropping claims. SB 690 specifies that only the California Attorney General may bring lawsuits alleging violations of Section 638.51. Private plaintiffs may still bring wiretapping claims under Section 631 or eavesdropping claims under Sections 632 and 637. These plaintiffs may still seek the $5,000 statutory damages for such violations of CIPA and may still potentially file class action lawsuits. Legislative action to curb these claims may be forthcoming. When Governor Newsom signed SB 690, he noted that “additional work in this area is needed, as CIPA contains other decades-old statutes that are also susceptible to abuse by overly aggressive litigants,” and he urged the California legislature to take this on next year to “ensure a fair balance between protection private information and preventing rapacious litigation.” Looking Forward While SB 690 is an important change, companies should remain vigilant with respect to the use of third-party tools within their websites and potential CIPA lawsuits. It is likely that plaintiffs will now allege that the same internet tracking technologies amount to wiretapping or eavesdropping violating Sections 631, 632, and 632.7 and seek the $5,000 statutory damages per putative violation, in addition to violations of other laws. Further, the California Legislature’s elimination of a private right of action for online pen register and trap and trace device cases does not eliminate the risk of suit under Section 638.51. The California Attorney General may pick up where private lawsuits have left off, though Governor Newsom stated that he is aligned with the “goal of protecting small businesses from overzealous lawsuits based on a statute written without today’s complex technological landscape in mind.” If you would like assistance with, or have any questions about, CIPA claims, please contact one of the authors of this alert.

Taxed from Home: How Post-Pandemic Remote Work Magnifies the Constitutional Issues with Taxing Telecommuters

Phoebe D. Leach examines the constitutional issues surrounding state taxation of telecommuters and the legal challenges facing certain remote worker tax regimes. Click under "Resources" below to read the full article.

Securing a Legislative Victory for the American Car Rental Association

Lewis Rice member David W. Sweeney represented the American Car Rental Association (ACRA) in its effort to shape legislation governing the operations of Turo, an online car-sharing platform, at St. Louis Lambert International Airport. The initial bill would have permitted Turo to operate in airport garages within walking distance of passenger terminals, a proposal opposed by members of the St. Louis Airport Commission due to competitive concerns. David engaged with stakeholders to negotiate a revised agreement that addressed these objections while protecting the interests of ACRA. The final legislation limits Turo’s operations to three designated parking areas west of Terminal 1. The measure was opposed by the St Louis Airport Director but  approved unanimously by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, marking a significant milestone in the legislative process. This outcome preserved competitive balance in the airport rental market and aligned with ACRA’s policy objectives. The case demonstrates how strategic advocacy and effective negotiation can deliver tangible results for industry associations facing complex regulatory challenges.

Lewis Rice Website Named a Winner in the 2026 WebAward Competition