University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
J.D., magna cum laude, 1980
Managing Editor, University of Illinois Law Journal, 1979-1980
B.S., summa cum laude, 1977
Illinois
Missouri
Illinois USDC, Central District
Illinois USDC, Northern District
Illinois USDC, Southern District
Missouri USDC, Eastern District
Missouri USDC, Western District
Kansas USDC
Arkansas USDC, Eastern District
Arkansas USDC, Western District
Michigan USDC, Western District
Nebraska USDC
Indiana USDC, Northern District
Indiana USDC, Southern District
US Ct Appeals, 1st Circuit (Covers ME, MA, NH, RI, Puerto Rico)
US Ct Appeals, 2nd Circuit (Covers CT, NY, VT)
US Ct Appeals, 5th Circuit (Covers LA, MS, TX)
US Ct Appeals, 7th Circuit (Covers IL, IN, WI)
US Ct Appeals, 8th Circuit (Covers AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD)
US Ct Appeals, 9th Circuit (AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, M. Isles)
US Ct Appeals, 10th Circuit (Covers CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, WY)
US Ct Appeals, 11th Circuit (Covers AL, FL, GA)
US Supreme Ct
Federal Practice Committee, USDC for the Eastern District of Missouri
Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis
Illinois State Bar Association
American Bar Association
- Tort and Insurance Practice Section
- ERISA Subcommittee of Committee
- Employee Rights and Responsibilities
Missouri Bar
Defense Research Institute
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Standard Insurance Company
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
Xerox Corporation
Named Lawyer of the Year for Litigation - ERISA in St. Louis by Best Lawyers, (by BL Rankings) 2015; 2018, 2020; 2022; 2025
Listed in Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers, (by Thomson Reuters) 2005-2006, 2009-2021
Listed in The Best Lawyers in America, (by BL Rankings) 2008-2025
Fellow American College of Employee Benefits Counsel
Thompson Coburn LLP
Partner, 1997-Present
Peper Martin Jensen Maichel & Hetlage
Partner, 1980-1997
Rick devotes his entire practice to the defense of employers in ERISA litigation related to pension, life, health, and disability benefits, both self-funded and insured.
In his 30-plus years of experience in ERISA litigation, Rick has appeared as lead counsel in more than 100 reported ERISA district court opinions originating from more than 30 district courts, and 30 ERISA appellate court opinions originating from eight different circuits. A number of those opinions are cited today as precedents in key areas of ERISA law, including "serious consideration" in the context of early retirement programs, whipsaw calculations in cash balance plans, and the enforceability of forum selection clauses.
Rick's deep experience in ERISA litigation allows him to assess newly filed claims and quickly zero in on a suit's key issues and the best avenue for its timely disposal. He has served as national ERISA counsel for Fortune 500 companies, and successfully defended clients in matters across the country, including in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, and all of the 8th Circuit.
Rick has defended against claims brought against pension plans and welfare plans, as well as their fiduciaries, and also counsels governmental and church plans. He has successfully defended clients who have been the subject of DOL investigations and actions.
Named the 2022 and 2025 St. Louis Lawyer of the Year for Litigation - ERISA by "Best Lawyers®" (BL Rankings), Rick is a member of the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel. He is the only ACEBC Fellow in Missouri who devotes his practice to defending ERISA litigation.
Preville v. PepsiCo Hourly Employees Retirement Plan, 2016 WL 2942612, 649 Fed. Appx. 63 (2nd Cir. May 20, 2016)
Jones v. PepsiCo., Inc., No. 15-CV-01426 (SN), 2016 WL 2642676 (S.D. NY May 6, 2016)
Cocker v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n of St. Louis Pension Plan For Nonschedule Employees, 817 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2016)
Kutten v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (US), 759 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2014)
Hankins v. Standard Ins. Co., 677 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2012)
Ghouri v. Johnson & Johnson Long Term Disability Plan, 2010 WL 4860888 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2010)
Jenkins v. Price Waterhouse Long Term Disability Plan, 564 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2009)
Pendleton v. QuikTrip Corp., 567 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2009)
Keach v. U.S. Trust Co., N.A., 313 F.Supp.2d 818 (C.D. Ill. 2004)
Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Supreme Court Review
Choice of law provisions in ERISA plans will not result in uniformity
Bifurcated trials: A road map for better results for insurers facing non-ERISA disability claims
5 takeaways from the employee ERISA win in McMillan
Participants who roll their pension benefits into IRAs do not ‘receive’ them
Supreme Court clarifies definition of ‘church plan’ under ERISA
Halo looms over new decision that adds to ERISA risks for claims administrators
“Choice of Law Provisions in ERISA Plans Will Not Result in Uniformity“;
Benefits Law Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, Autumn, 2019
“Statute of Limitations Issues in ERISA § 510 Claims”;
DRI Voice, Vol. 9, Issue 2, January 13, 2010
ERISA: Jumpstarting Limitations;
DRI The Voice, Vol. 8 Issue 45 Nov. 11, 2009
“Issue Preclusion in ERISA Benefits Litigation: Should New Clams Be Permitted After Denial”;
DRI ERISA Report, Vol. 3 Issue 2, December 12, 2008
"Marketability Discounts in ESOP Redemptions: Armstrong v. LaSalle Bank Nat. Ass’n";
Benefits Law Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2 at 31, Summer 2007
"The DOMA Decision: What Plan Sponsors Need to Know";
sponsored by BAMSL, July 2013
"Governmental Plans, Church Plans, and the Safe Harbor";
sponsored by DRI Life, Health, Disability and ERISA Litigation Conference, Boston, MA, April 27, 2011
"ERISA Litigation Update";
sponsored by BAMSL, September 2011
Preparing a Good Administrative Record;
American Conference Institute New York City, NY, October 19, 2009
ERISA Disability Cases After Glen;
sponsored by BAMSL, May 2009
ERISA Fiduciary Duties;
sponsored by BAMSL, April 2009
NOTICE.
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that
doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited
information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information
about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from
us that we represent you (an ‘engagement letter’).
By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you. Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.