Photo of Nick Morgan

Nick Morgan

Nick focuses his practice on chemical and toxic exposure matters as well as premises liability cases. As part of this work, he regularly defends a chemical manufacturing and water treatment company in courts across the country. He has significant experience in defending mold exposure claims in residential and government buildings.

As a college athlete, Nick was drawn to litigation as a law student. It fit perfectly with his competitive nature, as well as his commitment to teamwork, intense preparation, and obtaining successful results.

In addition to his litigation practice, Nick has considerable experience in both federal and state government affairs, with an emphasis on regulatory compliance. Nick utilizes his previous work in the Minnesota Senate and the U.S. Congress to help his clients navigate an increasingly complex and challenging regulatory environment. He has advised on several legislative, congressional, and statewide campaigns. He also regularly advises independent expenditure organizations. He represents elected officials in administrative proceedings as well. In short, Nick is considered one of the “go to” lawyers on campaign finance and election law issues in Minnesota. Additionally, Nick has represented clients on regulatory matters before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and is no stranger to public service: Minnesota’s Chief Justice appointed him to the state Compensation Council for Judicial Officers. Nick has also served on his community’s police advisory commission.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Schaffner v. Monsanto, No. 22-3075 (3rd Cir. 2024), recently held that a state-law duty to warn claim was expressly preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). To reach the conclusion, the 3rd Circuit diverged from the 9th and 11th Circuits, thus creating a split between circuits and providing an opportunity for the United States Supreme Court to step in and make a definitive ruling on FIFRA preemption.  If the Supreme Court were to adopt the 3rd Circuit’s reasoning, FIFRA would preempt any state-law duty to warn claims that were inconsistent with EPA’s approved label for products containing glyphosate.