Megan Sterchi Lammert is an associate in the firm’s St. Louis office practicing in the areas of personal injury defense, premises liability, and product liability. Meg is a member of the firm’s Diversity & Inclusion Committee and Technology Planning Committee.
Prior to joining the firm, Meg served as a Consumer Protection Intern with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office and as a Summer Law Clerk for a Kansas City area law firm.
Meg graduated from the University of Missouri School of Law-Columbia in 2015. During law school, she served as a Law School Admissions Ambassador, Judging Director of the Board of Advocates, Vice President, Speaker, and Auction Logistics Chair of the Women’s Law Association, and was an Associate Member of the Journal of Dispute Resolution. Meg also served as a Member of the Phi Delta Phi and Phi Alpha Delta legal fraternities, as well as a BARBRI campus representative.
Meg earned her undergraduate degree in Communication, magna cum laude, from the University of Missouri-Columbia in 2012.
- USDC, Western District of Missouri
- USDC, Central District of Illinois
- USDC, Eastern District of Missouri
- University of Missouri - Columbia School of Law, JD, 2015
- Order of the Barristers
- Judging Director, Board of Advocates
- University of Missouri, Columbia, BA - Communication, magna cum laude, 2012
- Phi Beta Kappa
- Omicron Delta Kappa
| SECOND UPDATE: Missouri Governor Mike Parson signs Senate Bill 7, which amends venue and joinder laws, to prevent out of state plaintiffs from litigating their cases in an inappropriate venue.
| UPDATE: House Passes Senate Bill 7, in which the Missouri legislature seeks to amend venue and joinder laws, to prevent out of state plaintiffs from litigating their cases in an inappropriate venue.
| In Senate Bill 7, the Missouri legislature seeks to amend venue and joinder laws, to prevent out of state plaintiffs from litigating their cases in an inappropriate venue.
| In an October 1, 2018 statement issued from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., the FDA not only announced its efforts to strengthen its medical device cybersecurity program, but also unveiled its collaborative effort with MITRE, producing a cybersecurity "playbook" in order to assist entities in preparing for and responding to cybersecurity attacks.
| In an October 2, 2018 statement issued from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., the FDA announced its efforts to strengthen its medical device cybersecurity program in order to protect patients from medical device vulnerabilities and emerging threats to those devices.
| The Missouri Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's dismissal of a claim for defamation, based on the intra-corporate immunity rule, which protects certain internal communications made to corporate managers.
| In dismissing non-Missouri Plaintiffs from a product liability lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri adds to split in authority between two of Plaintiffs' favorite forums in Missouri and California, testing the limits of Bristol-Myers Squibb.
| The Missouri Court of Appeals establishes why and how an animal shelter’s animal adoption contract granted full ownership of a dog to the individual who adopted it, leaving the animal shelter no right to repossess or otherwise maintain a long leash on the dog for the duration of its life
| The Missouri Court of Appeals rules that a worker may owe an independent duty of care to a co-worker, which is separate and distinct from her employer's non-delegable duties.
| Continuing from our two prior posts in this three-part series on effectively addressing cybersecurity breaches in medical devices, this third and final post will focus on best practices to prepare, mitigate and otherwise manage vulnerabilities and potential cyber-attacks.
| Continuing from our prior post in a three-part series on effectively addressing cybersecurity breaches in medical devices, this second post will focus on specific examples of cybersecurity attacks on medical devices.
| We will explore in a series of three blog posts: (1) the specific vulnerabilities and risks inherent with embedded and interconnected medical devices, (2) cybersecurity and attacks on medical devices, and (3) practical approaches companies may employ both before and after a device is marketed. This first post in the series serves as an introduction to navigating the medical device field...
| The Missouri Supreme Court reverses and remands an employment discrimination and retaliation case, in favor of employer-defendant, due to prejudice resulting from an improper submission of a jury instruction.
| In a revised opinion issued on May 24, 2016, the Missouri Supreme Court continues to uphold the constitutionality of the $350k non-economic damages cap, pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. §538.210, in wrongful death cases, and to focus on the distinction between statutory and common law claims; but expands its analysis of the equal protection challenge raised by plaintiff
| The Missouri Supreme Court, in a split decision, upholds the constitutionality of the $350k non-economic damages cap, pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. §538.210 in wrongful death case, recognizing the distinction between statutory and common law claims.
| The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District, applying a modified economic realities test, held that AutoZone, Inc., the parent corporation of AutoZoners, LLC, was not Plaintiff's employer for purposes of the Missouri Human Rights Act. However, the Court found that Plaintiff made a submissible case for sexual harassment, which lead to its decision to uphold the jury's rulings in favor of Plaintiff for her hostile work environment claim, the trial court's decision in refusing to reduce the award of compensatory damages and the jury's award of punitive damages against AutoZoners, LLC. The case was ultimately remanded on the issue of attorneys' fees.
| In Lang v. Goldsworthy, a case decided by the Missouri Supreme Court on October 13, 2015, Plaintiffs, consisting of family members who filed a wrongful death action alleging negligent chiropractic services of a health care provider that allegedly caused the death of their relative, unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the constitutionality of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.225, generally known as the "health affidavit" statute.