Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
We are only able to display limited information for this firm. We display more complete information for all of the following firms:
Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP is a litigation boutique that handles constitutional disputes and regulatory appeals against government bodies. The firm offers ‘Supreme Court–level advocacy with the efficiency and focus of a boutique’ for technology and energy sector clients. Practice head Scott Keller works across Washington DC and Austin, and has achieved the rare feat of arguing ten or more cases before both the US and Texas Supreme Courts. In Washington DC, Steve Lehotsky and ’seasoned appellate and complex litigation strategist’ Jonathan Cohn manage administrative challenges, including a recent win for Harvard University involving a $2.2bn funding freeze. Based in Oklahoma City, Mithun Mansinghani recently led a rare 8-0 US Supreme Court victory regarding Clean Air Act implementation. Mary Elizabeth Miller joined in March 2025 from Kirkland & Ellis LLP, while Kyle Hawkins departed in October 2025.
Legal 500 Editorial commentary
Testimonials
Collated independently by Legal 500 research team.
- ‘Lehotsky Keller Cohn has built a truly national appellate practice that combines Supreme Court–level advocacy with the efficiency and focus of a boutique, delivering results across federal and state appellate courts. What most distinguishes the firm is its outcomes. The boutique model confers meaningful advantages; lawyers all have high-end clerkship pedigrees, yet matters are staffed leanly with senior ownership to avoid the inefficiencies of pyramid staffing while maintaining premium quality.’
- ‘Jonathan Cohn is a seasoned appellate and complex litigation strategist who is a frequent choice for appellate issues. He is a full-service litigator who can drive strategy from beginning to end.’
Key clients
- American Gas Association, American Public Gas Association, National Propane Gas Association
- Bayer Healthcare LLC
Work highlights
Won summary judgment for Harvard University in a challenge to the federal government’s $2.2bn funding freeze, with the court vacating the order as an arbitrary and capricious violation of the First Amendment and Title VI.