Baker Botts appellate lawyers have argued more than 25 cases before the United States Supreme Court, have argued cases in all 13 of the United States Courts of Appeals, and have appeared in numerous state appellate courts in Texas. From breach of contract, tort and statutory claims to complex securities, tax, constitutional, criminal and intellectual property issues, our appellate lawyers have an exceptional depth and breadth of experience to draw upon in representing clients throughout the trial and appellate process at the state and federal level. Chambers USA 2009 recently recognized the practice as one of the top in the country for its "rapid response time and ability to 'draw connections and conclusions that others miss.'"

Most of our appellate lawyers have worked as judicial clerks, providing them with unique insight into how appellate courts operate and what arguments are persuasive to appellate judges. Of the 21 lawyers in our core appellate practice group, three clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court, four for the Texas Supreme Court and nine for various of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Several others have clerked for justices in the intermediate Texas appellate courts or for federal district judges. All told, the 21 lawyers in the group collectively have held 25 judicial clerkships.

Our appellate lawyers also help clients during the initial trial, working collaboratively with trial lawyers to frame legal theories, draft motions, preserve the record at trial and, in certain situations, seek or oppose mandamus relief from appellate courts before the case goes to trial. Many of our appellate lawyers have trial experience, having tried cases to judges and juries as first-chair trial lawyers. Our appellate lawyers have had consistent success for clients, either by winning the case at the trial court level or by properly preserving error and winning it on appeal.

Representative matters include:

• Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 06-20157 (5th Cir. 2008) successfully represented Reliant on appeal of a certified class action brought by members of Reliant's pension plan. The plaintiffs alleged that it was imprudent for Reliant to allow the plan to invest in Reliant stock during a period in which the stock price dropped after the revelation of accounting irregularities. Addressing an issue of first impression for the 5th Circuit, the Court held that ERISA affords an employer the "presumption of prudence" when its pension plan invests in employer stock. The Court affirmed summary judgment for Reliant, concluding that plaintiffs could not overcome this presumption because Reliant was in good overall financial health and there was no evidence of self-dealing by Reliant.
• Klesch v. Liberty Media, No.05-1206 (10th Cir. 2007) represented Liberty Media in this $600 million contract dispute in which Klesch & Company Ltd. claimed that Liberty had breached a contract, and had misappropriated Klesch's confidential business information, in connection with a proposed acquisition of German cable companies. Liberty prevailed at trial. On appeal, Klesch argued that the trial court had erred in granting Liberty Media's Rule 50 motion to preclude Klesch from recovering damages under one of the parties' agreements, and had misinstructed the jury on causation and misappropriation. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court acted well within its discretion in ruling that the pretrial order excluded Klesch's claim under the excluded agreement. The Tenth Circuit further held that there was no error in the misappropriation instruction and that any error in the causation instruction was harmless.
• CPH v. Morgan Stanley, No. 4D05-2602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) successfully represented Morgan Stanley in overturning a $1.6 billion judgment for securities fraud case brought by Coleman (Parent) Holdings (CPH), a company owned by New York financier Ronald O. Perelman. On appeal, Morgan Stanley argued (among other things) that the trial court had erred in applying Florida rather than New York law, and that CPH had failed to prove a critical fact necessary to establish damages. The court of appeals agreed that CPH's proof of damages was insufficient, reversed the judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Morgan Stanley.
• Moncrief Oil International Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, No. 06-10552 (5th Cir. March 12, 2007) represented OAO Gazprom on appeal in a matter in which Moncrief had sued three of Russia's Gazprom companies for the loss of a deal that would have allowed Moncrief to participate in the development of a gas field. Moncrief estimated its damages in the billions. The district court dismissed all three defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and the decision was affirmed on appeal.
• City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, No. 03-1601, 73 U.S.L.W. 4217 (U.S. Supreme Court Mar. 22, 2005) (avail. 2005 WL 645209) retained by City of Rancho Palos Verdes to handle matter before U.S. Supreme Court; successfully petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a court of appeals decision holding that attorney's fees and damages are available under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 when local governments violate provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act governing the siting of wireless communications facilities; obtained unanimous Supreme Court decision reversing the court of appeals' decision and holding that Congress did not intend such violations to be actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 
• Spanish Broadcasting System of Florida, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 376 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2004) defended Hispanic Broadcasting Company in antitrust case in which dismissal with prejudice was affirmed, holding that the competing radio station owner failed to show injury to competition in alleged attempt to monopolize market for Spanish-language radio in top 10 U.S. cities.
• MacLachlan v. ExxonMobil Corp., 350 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 2003) represented oil company in ERISA class action seeking pension and severance benefits in which summary judgment was affirmed, holding that affected workers were not misclassified as independent contractors.
• Martinez v. Schlumberger, Ltd ., 338 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2003) represented oilfield services company in employment case in which the court affirmed summary judgment, creating a new test for evaluating an employer's duty to disclose retirement benefit changes that were under consideration.
• Shell Oil Co. v. HRN, Inc., 144 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. 2004) represented oil company in a case brought by independent dealers in which the court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment, adopting an objective standard of good faith under UCC section 2-305 and holding that the company's prices to its dealers were set in good faith.