Russell Jones represents businesses and individuals in complex, high-stakes litigation across the country. Clients rely on Russ for seasoned trial advocacy in disputes that present significant financial, operational and reputational risk.

Russ has extensive experience litigating commercial, antitrust, class action and intellectual property matters in state and federal courts and in arbitration and has tried more than 50 jury trials, bench trials, arbitrations and appeals. He regularly serves as lead counsel in bet-the-company disputes, including complex class actions and multi-jurisdictional litigation. His practice spans a wide range of industries, including telecommunications, technology, financial services, consumer products, manufacturing, professional services and sports-related businesses.

A substantial portion of Russ’s practice focuses on defending class action claims involving consumer fraud, antitrust, securities, tax and statutory claims, including matters arising under the TCPA. He frequently represents telecommunications providers and technology companies in litigation involving data-driven communications and regulatory issues. Russ approaches these matters with an emphasis on early risk assessment, strategic motion practice and efficient resolution, while remaining fully prepared to take cases through trial and appeal.

Russ also represents clients in intellectual property disputes involving patents, trademarks, copyrights and publicity rights or NILs. He has tried cases to favorable verdicts before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His experience includes trying patent infringement cases and handling post-trial and appellate proceedings. In addition, he advises clients on antitrust and competition issues, business torts, insurance-related disputes and complex commercial contract litigation.

Clients value Russ’s judgment, courtroom experience and ability to manage complex litigation while keeping business objectives at the forefront.

Education

  • Duke University School of Law (J.D.)
    • Order of the Coif
    • The Duke Law Journal, Editorial Board Member
  • Yale University (B.A., cum laude)

    Bar Admission

    • Missouri
    • Kansas

    Court Admissions

    • U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri
    • U.S. District Court, District of Kansas
    • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
    • United States Supreme Court
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

    Professional Affiliations

    • National Conference of Bar Presidents
      • Secretary, 2025
      • Member, Executive Council, 2020-2023
    • Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Foundation
      • President, 2024
    • Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association
      • President, 2016
    • Lawyers Association of Kansas City
      • President, 2002-2003
    • The Missouri Bar
    • American Bar Association
      • Section of Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation Sub-Section
    •  American Bar Foundation, Fellow
    • American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA)
      • Member, 2019-present
    • Defense Research Institute (DRI)
      • Commercial Litigation Committee
      • Intellectual Property Litigation Special Litigation Group, Vice-Chair of Right of Publicity sub-committee

    Recognition

    • Named to Missouri Lawyers Weekly’s The POWER List for Sports & Entertainment Law, 2023-2024
    • Selected as an MVP by BTI Consulting in Client Service All-Stars for Commercial Litigation and as a Client Service All-Star
    • Named "Local Litigation Star" by Benchmark Litigation, 2010, 2013, 2017-2019, 2021-2026
    • Ranked in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business, Band 2, Litigation: General Commercial, Missouri: Kansas City & Surrounds, 2012-2025
    • Selected for Best Lawyers® “Lawyer of the Year” in Kansas City, Missouri, for Bet-the-Company Litigation, 2024
    • Selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America® for:
      • Bet-the-Company Litigation, 2022-2026 
      • Commercial Litigation, 2005-2016, 2018-2026
      • Litigation - Antitrust, 2005-2016, 2018-2026
      • Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2005-2016, 2018-2026
      • Litigation - Patent, 2005-2016, 2018-2026
    Publications
    Texas Expands Its Mini-TCPA: Text Messages Now Covered, Litigation Risk Rises
    Key Takeaways: The Texas Mini-TCPA now expressly includes text messages as “telephone solicitations,” expanding the scope of businesses required to comply with Texas’s unique registration and security requirements. Violations of the Texas Mini-TCPA’s do-not-call and mobile telemarketing consent provisions are now deemed “unfair or deceptive practices” under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, increasing litigation risk. Companies should review their approach to telemarketing in Texas and consider whether they should obtain a Texas telemarketing registration certificate or whether their activities fall into any of the statutory exemptions. Texas Mini-TCPA Amendments Take Effect Texas is one of several states that have adopted their own version of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), also known as a “Mini-TCPA.” The Texas Mini-TCPA covers much of the same
    Read More
    Federal Court Finds Text Messages Not Subject to TCPA’s DNC Requirements
     Key Takeaways: Companies sued for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations should consider challenging the allegations at the outset by moving to dismiss, rather than conceding based on out-of-date precedent and answering the complaint. The TCPA is in a particularly volatile state as more courts are beginning to see merit in challenges to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Orders. These changes follow the Supreme Court’s rulings in Loper Bright and McLaughlin, and the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling striking down the FCC’s proposed “one-to-one consent” rule, holding that the FCC had exceeded its statutory authority by imposing additional restrictions that were not supported by the TCPA’s text. Ins. Mktg. Coalition Ltd. v. Fed. Commun. Comm’n, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025). These rulings suggest further vulnerability
    Read More