• vcard
D 816.374.0584
F 816.753.1536
  • Education
    • J.D., University of Kansas School of Law, 1973
    • B.S., University of Kansas, 1969, Business Administration
  • Court Admissions
    • U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, 1973
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 1986
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1998
    • U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 1998
John M. Kilroy, Jr. is primarily involved in financial, fiduciary, professional defense and antitrust practices. Throughout the years, his trial practice has ranged from a dog bite case to major antitrust litigation. Mr. Kilroy has extensive experience in representing professional services clients such as accountants and lawyers. Industries in which Mr. Kilroy has significant experience include gasoline, the automotive aftermarket, recreational slides, real estate, brewing and telecommunications.

Mr. Kilroy has served as General Counsel, as well as Managing Partner and CEO of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy. He has served as Vice-Chairman of Polsinelli for three years following the merger of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy with Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan & Suelthaus.
  • Summary judgments for attorneys in defense of legal malpractice cases.
  • Jury verdict for accountant affirmed on appeal in lender’s lawsuit to recover for negligent misrepresentation in audited financial statement. Actual knowledge of accountant that opinion would be given to lender necessary to lender's case.
  • Summary judgment for accountant affirmed on claims of valuation errors.
  • Summary judgment for accountant affirmed in audit case.
  • Directed verdict for accountant. Bank purchaser cannot recover for corporate mismanagement which was known before purchase.
  • Defense of Ernst & Young, who gave a comfort letter in acquisition of a public company.
  • Sections 10(b) and 11: liability of accountant cannot be based solely on statements of client, but must involve accountant’s knowledge of false statements. 
  • Tying Arrangements: summary judgment for Mobil in Franchise/TBA and gasoline tying case.
  • Obtained the denial of a requested class action, and then obtained summary judgment on behalf of a consumer reporting agency in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) class action brought in the Northern District of Illinois.  Plaintiffs alleged that our client provided their credit reports to certain payday lenders, including Native American tribal lending entities, without permissible purpose under the FCRA because those lenders lacked licensure required by the State of Illinois to make loans in excess of 9%.  Plaintiffs also alleged that our client failed to implement reasonable procedures to ensure that it furnished consumer reports only for a permissible purpose, as required by the FCRA.  The class as defined would have included over one million consumers and the FCRA imposes statutory penalties between $100-$1,000 per violation.  Plaintiffs also sought punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.