Mark Mittleman
Phone: 314.863.8484

Mark Mittleman

mark mittleman

Mark Mittleman is a partner in the law firm of Stewart, Mittleman & O'Rourke, L.L.C., in St. Louis, Missouri.  His practice focuses on the resolution of complex issues and disputes including corporate, commercial, regulatory and administrative law, as well as public affairs, securities, trust, estate, and insurance coverage litigation, including class and derivative actions for both plaintiffs and defendants.  He approaches each client's legal needs by focusing on a comprehensive analysis of the case on its own terms and thereby develop the right approach to fit for that client.

Mr. Mittleman is a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Virginia School of Law.  He was admitted to The Missouri Bar in 1972 and is also a member of the Bar of the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.  He served as an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri until 1976, when he entered private practice in St. Louis.  He has litigated more than seventy-five civil and criminal cases on appeal to the Missouri and Federal courts, including NationsMart Corporation v. Carlon, 524 U.S. 927 (1998), and Quinn v. Millsap, 491 U.S. 95 (1989), in the Supreme Court of the United States; In re NationsMart Corporation Securities Litigation, 130 F.3d 309 (8th Cir. 1997), and Nichols v. Tower Grove Bank, 497 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1974), in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Cicuit; Chesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield, 64 S.W.3d 315 (Mo. blanc 2002), and Charles v. Spradling, 524 S.W.2d 820 (Mo. banc 1975), in the Supreme Court of Missouri; and Adams v. Friganza, 344 S.W.3d 240 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013), in the Missouri Court of Appeals.  His skills of clear writing and oral argument are particularly relevant to the sophisticated pre-trial and non-jury issues of constitutional, business, estate and trust cases, as well as in appellate practice.

Mr. Mittleman was trained as a mediator by the American Academy of Attorney-Mediators in 1994, and believes in the mediation of disputes to resolve them whenever possible.  He has been Vice-President of the St. Louis Chapter of the Association of Attorney-Mediators, an American Arbitration Association and Forum Dispute Management Services panelist, and certified for alternative dispute resolution by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Mr. Mittleman has also served as Chairman of the Missouri Coalition for School Choice.  He has been a Director of the Harvard Alumni Association, the St. Louis Chamber Music Society, and the St. Louis Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society; President of the Harvard Club of St. Louis; and active in other civic, educational and cultural organizations at both the local and national levels.  From 2005 to 2008 he served as a member of the Missouri Criminal Sentencing Commission.  He is a devoted birder with a worldwide life list of over 2100 species, and travels both to hike in the National Parks and for classical concerts, operas and art museum exhibitions throughout the United States, Europe and Canada.  His fiancee, Susan Wood, is a painting conservator.  They have a gray striped tomcat named Bela Lugosi Bartok.

Main Menu

Office Location

Stewart, Mittleman & O´Rourke, L.L.C.
222 South Central Avenue
Suite 202
Clayton, Missouri 63105-3509

Tel: 314.863.8484
Fax: 314.863.5312

Map & Directions

Disclaimer

The materials provided on this site are for informational purposes only and are not to be considered legal advice. The transmission and receipt of information on this website does not constitute the creation of any attorney-client relationship. The issuer/publisher assumes no liability for the reader’s reliance on this publications content. Before making any decision based on the contents herein, the reader is advised to consult competent professional advisors. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.