Skip to main content

Christopher William Bowman

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Appellate Attorney in Minneapolis, MN

Madigan, Dahl & Harlan, P.A.
222 S 9th St, Suite 3150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612-604-2585
Fax: 612-604-2599
Selected to Rising Stars: 2018 - 2022
Licensed in Minnesota Since: 2009
Practice Areas: Appellate, Employment & Labor: Employer, Construction Litigation: Business, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation: Plaintiff, Civil Litigation: Defense
Attorney Profile

A highly regarded civil trial and appellate lawyer, Christopher William Bowman is an attorney at Madigan, Dahl & Harlan, P.A. Working out of the firm's office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, he represents clients throughout the state and across the country. Admitted to practice in Minnesota since 2009, Mr. Bowman is also admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Bowman has also appeared in matters on a pro hac vice basis all around the country.

A portion of Mr. Bowman's practice is centered on labor and employment law litigation. In this regard, he provides defense representation to businesses that are facing claims of discrimination under various federal and state statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His experience in this regard has also included wrongful termination and other alleged types of retaliation. Mr. Bowman's non-employment-law caseload has encompassed construction disputes, franchise and distribution law, real estate matters, and general business litigation. His successful track record and high degree of ethics have earned him the respect of his peers, including being selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America. Mr. Bowman has also received an "Excellent" peer review rating through Avvo.

After receiving a Bachelor of Arts in English and government from Lawrence University in 2006, Mr. Bowman went on to pursue his legal education at what was then known as William Mitchell College of Law, and he served several internships before being awarded his Juris Doctor cum laude in 2009. He then clerked for judges on the Minnesota Court of Appeals before joining a law firm that represented injured or retaliated-against railroad workers. Mr. Bowman has been with his current firm since November 2019.

Practice Areas
Appellate, Employment & Labor: Employer, Construction Litigation: Business, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation: Plaintiff, Civil Litigation: Defense
Focus Areas

Appeals, Wage & Hour Laws, Labor Law, Trade Secret, Non-Compete Agreements

Selections

5 Years Rising Stars
  • Rising Stars: 2018 - 2022

About Christopher William Bowman

First Admitted: 2009, Minnesota

Professional Webpage: https://www.mdh-law.com/attorney/bowman-christopher/

Educational Background

  • B.A., English, Government & Political Science,  Lawrence University of Wisconsin: Dean's List; Judicial Board; Vice President and Finance Chairman, Student Senate, 2006

Verdicts/Settlements

  • Rookaird v. BNSF Ry. Co., 908 F.3d 451 (9th Cir. 2018): On appeal following a verdict in favor of plaintiff-employee, the Ninth Circuit rejected railroad-defendant’s argument that the FRSA’s whistleblower protections applied only when the employee refused to participate in an actual violation of a rule or regulation, finding that the FRSA protects railroad employees who engage in a “good-faith refusal to undertake conduct the employee believed to be violative of a law, rule, or regulation, even if the conduct at issue would not constitute an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation if performed or continued,” 2018
  • Wooten v BNSF Ry. Co. - Following a two-week trial in Missoula, Montana, a federal jury unanimously found in favor of the plaintiff on both his claim for a personal injury under the FELA and the railroad’s termination of his employment for filing the personal injury report under the FRSA’s whistleblower protections (49 U.S.C. § 20109(a)(4)). The jury awarded over $1.4 million in lost wages, $500,000 in emotional pain and suffering, and $249,999 in punitive damages ($1 below statutory maximum). Following post-trial motions , the district court denied the railroad’s motions for a new trial and remittitur, and added an additional $1 million in fees and costs, commenting that plaintiff’s attorneys “demonstrated a thorough and reliable understanding of the state of FRSA litigation on a national scale” and had “risen to national prominence in [FRSA litigation] for good reason.” The $3.2 million judgment represents the largest to date under the FRSA’s whistleblower protections, 2018

Honors/Awards

  • CALI Excellence for the Future Award in Torts & Business: Agency, Partnerships, and LLC's, William Mitchell College of Law
  • Merit Scholarship (75% of Tuition), William Mitchell College of Law
  • Leading Attorneys, FRSA
  • Awardee, Award of Professional Excellence, MSBA, June 2019
  • Minnesota State Bar Association Professional Excellence Award, 2019
  • Best Lawyers, U.S. News and World Report, Railroad Law, 2018 - 2020
  • Minnesota Rising Star (Labor & Employment), 2018-2019

Pro bono/Community Service

  • Vice Chancellor, Episcopal Church in Minnesota

Bar/Professional Activity

  • Minnesota State Bar Association
  • Anoka County Bar Association
  • Supreme Court of the United States of America, 2016
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit, 2013
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit, 2014
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 5th Circuit, 2013
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit, 2013
  • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2018
  • U.S. District Court District of Minnesota, 2013
  • Minnesota, 2009
  • Minnesota State Bar Association, Appellate Practice Section, Council Member

Scholarly Lectures/Writings

  • This article responds to other articles that seek to restrict the admissibility of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) in court cases where an injured plaintiff has suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, arguing that they misframe the issue of whether DTI technology has gained general acceptance as a diagnostic tool for single incidents.  The article offers a brief overview of DTI technology and its capabilities; summarizes the legal standards governing admissibility of such evidence and the position utilized by opponents of DTI to prevent admissibility; discusses events that transpired at an Emory conference seeking to develop some expert consensus around these issues; and concludes that when the question of admissibility is viewed through the proper lens, district courts should reach the conclusion that DTI has gained sufficient acceptance to be admitted under either standard and that the problems raised by its opponents are more properly handled by way of vigorous cross examination, Co-Author, Daubert, Frye & DTI: Hijacking the Right to Trial by Jury, American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience, 2014
  • Editor, Journal of Law and Practice, William Mitchell College of Law
  • Author, Whistleblower Protections of the Federal Rail Safety Act: An Overview, William Mitchell Journal of Law & Practice, https://www.wmlawandpractice.com/2015/06/15/1259, 2015

Industry Groups

  • Alcohol
  • Beer
  • Construction
  • Distributors
  • Wholesalers
Show More
Office Location for Christopher William Bowman

222 S 9th St
Suite 3150
Minneapolis, MN 55402

Phone: 612-604-2585

Fax: 612-604-2599

Last Updated: 5/15/2022

Page Generated: 0.43966007232666 sec