Andrew Leiendecker, Stinson LLP

When he started his legal career, Stinson LLP Partner Andrew Leiendecker did not have to spend much time deliberating on his career path.

“From day one in law school, I knew I wanted to practice business litigation; it appealed to me because of the complex nature of the work.”

His practice includes “a lot of class action work and government-facing litigation. In many of these cases we are applying the same procedural playbook, Rule 23 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). It’s often very complicated legal issues and subject matter; and every case is completely different. So, the work really stays fresh, intellectually.”

A 2017 graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School, Leiendecker joined Stinson LLP in 2021, after nearly three years in the Minneapolis office of Jones Day.

Today he represents clients across the country in complex commercial and class action disputes involving insurance, manufacturing, energy and retail sectors. He also defends companies in high stakes matters brought by state and local governments, as well as litigation involving consumer protection, deceptive trade practices and product liability.    

About seven years into his career, Leiendecker cited “the number one thing I’ve found to be true: regardless of the type of legal work you do, area or specialty, the most important thing is to find the right team; surround yourself with talented people, both in the early stage of your career and later.”

He appreciates having the opportunity to pass on what he has learned to younger lawyers. He recently concluded seven years — since graduating law school — as an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, running the school’s national moot court program.

The craft of presenting arguments in appellate court is different from district court argument presentation, he said.

“The highest courts have the opportunity to decide what the law is and what it should be. So, there are opportunities in those types of briefs to present more policy arguments and think more ‘big picture’ in terms of the long-term ramifications of laws. That’s really important because those are the types of questions that may be on courts’ minds.”