K. Todd Wallace - Antitrust, Employment, Business Law

Mr. Kenneth Todd Wallace is an attorney and founding partner of the law firm Wallace Meyaski.


K Todd Wallace is an attorney and founding partner of the law firm Wallace Meyaski LLC. He has nearly 20 years of experience in legal services and business professions with established excellence in trial advocacy, negotiation, strategic and initiative planning, employment law compliance, government relations, mergers and acquisitions, and team building. 


Wallace Meyaski, LLC

K. Todd Wallace, Lawyer

5109 Canal Blvd., Suite 102

New Orleans, LA 70124

(504) 644-2011



News articles about Kenneth Todd Wallace: 


“Antitrust attorney K. Todd Wallace comments on DOJ antitrust investigation of universities’ admission programs,” https://www.einpresswire.com/shareable-preview/8B-zrNP0tbLaFpVley8EOg

“Attorney K. Todd Wallace introduces new “Fresh Start” Flexible Billing Plans for all New Firm Clients,” https://www.einpresswire.com/shareable-preview/18etSiM3rXR9uT2lzhqDgA

“Antitrust attorney K. Todd Wallace comments on the latest development in Apple iPhone apps antitrust litigation,” https://www.einpresswire.com/shareable-preview/A2Swhzt8qqTfAN7XPcZKAw

“K. Todd Wallace is a featured presenter at the Acadiana Society for Human Resource Management (ASHRM) Annual Conference,” https://www.einpresswire.com/article/461517937/k-todd-wallace-is-a-featured-presenter-at-the-acadiana-society-for-human-resource-management-ashrm-annual-conference?n=2

“New Orleans Law Firm Wallace Meyaski offers unique "fixed fee" General Counsel services for small & mid-sized companies,” https://www.einpresswire.com/shareable-preview/sWVQNrVuvGfIOOD-bQB-gQ

“Attorney K Todd Wallace successfully moves federal court case from Louisiana to Client Home State of Texas,” https://www.einpresswire.com/shareable-preview/GL_QfXqOtoamItUoLLx5wQ

“Antitrust Attorney K. Todd Wallace Co-Authors Chapter in new Edition of ABA Intellectual Property Deskbook,” https://www.einpresswire.com/shareable-preview/5NksyIGm6YUHXY9EYqp7UA

“Antitrust Attorney K. Todd Wallace Starts Legal Blog and Commentary on Complex Antitrust and Trade-Related Legal Matters,” https://www.einpresswire.com/shareable-preview/vdM_ni5ujxGhmSFxrGehhA

“Respected Attorney K. Todd Wallace is featured Guest Speaker at NOLA Society for Human Resource Management,” https://www.einpresswire.com/article/456696388/respected-attorney-k-todd-wallace-is-featured-guest-speaker-at-nola-society-for-human-resource-management?n=2

Professional Formation and Experience

Kenneth Todd Wallace received his Juris Doctor, cum laude, from Loyola University College of Law, New Orleans, LA (1998). While at Loyola, he served as the Managing Editor of the Loyola Law Review, and as a member of the William C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Team. Before law school, he received his Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (1994).

Kenneth Todd Wallace began his professional career at the law firm of Liskow & Lewis (1998 - 2015), where he, among other assignments, served as the Chair of the Firm's Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice Group (2010-2015); Vice Chair of Commercial Litigation Section (2014-2015); Executive Board of Directors and Corporate Secretary (2012-2015); Hiring Partner (2007-2012); Chair of Diversity Committee (2006-2015); and Minority Recruiting and Retention Partner (2006-2008).

Thereafter, he founded KTW Resources, LLC (September 2016 – September 2017) where he provided HR Consulting and Strategic Business Solutions.

Since September 2017, he has been an attorney (and Founding Partner) of the law firm Wallace Meyaski, LLC in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Representative Matters

Kenneth Todd Wallace has successfully represented clients in matters across a broad range of industries including:

Successfully represented and obtained judgment for Miller Act plaintiff against contractor and its sureties in federal district court bench trial, and obtained judgment affirming the district court decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.  United States ex rel. Jems Fabrication, Inc. v. Benetech, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108275 (E.D. La. Aug. 1, 2013), aff’d, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8175 (5th Cir. La. Apr. 30, 2014).

Obtained early dismissal of state antitrust claims on behalf of major biotechnology company brought by the Louisiana Attorney General and successfully represented the company on the remaining Average Wholesale Pricing claims (2012).

Led team in securing full dismissal of federal RICO charges and related ad valorem tax collection and fraud claims brought against a group of clients by the Terrebonne Parish tax assessor (2010).

Successfully represented a major crude oil offloading company in pursuing antitrust claims against international cartel members in the marine hose industry (2010).

Significant part of trial and appellate team, defended an international law firm and one of its senior partners in a two-week jury trial in Mississippi state court (2010).

Obtained early dismissal of state and federal monopolization claims on behalf of an international marine salvage company through a successful Rule 12(b)(6) motion (2009).

Secured full dismissal of state antitrust claims of price fixing and monopolization on behalf of Motiva Enterprises, LLP that was affirmed by the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal and the Louisiana Supreme Court (2009). Tuban Petroleum, LLC v. SIARC, Inc., 09-0302 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/15/09), writ denied, 09-0945 (La. 6/5/09), 9 So. 3d 877.

Obtained key victory on behalf of a major biotechnology company against claims of illegal tying arrangements brought by the Louisiana Attorney General (2008).

Obtained dismissal of antitrust price fixing claims filed by the Louisiana Attorney General against one of the world’s largest international consulting firms (2008).  State of Louisiana, ex. rel., James D. Caldwell v. Allstate Insurance Co., et. al., No. 07-9409 (E.D. La. Dec. 17, 2008).

Successfully defended a major maritime company in a Department of Justice investigation based on allegations of conspiracy to rig bids and fix prices in a series of government contacts (2008).

Developed a successful legal theory for removal of state attorney general suits against industry as disguised “class” and “mass” actions subject to the Class Action Fairness Act.  See State of Louisiana, ex. rel., James D. Caldwell v. Allstate Insurance Co., et. al., 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15275 (5th Cir. July 18, 2008).

Successfully represented a major health care corporation and local hospital in pursuing attempted monopolization claims against competing hospital whereby the competing hospital ceased its attempt to monopolize the relevant clinic market following Hurricane Katrina (2005).

Assisted in successfully representing the Greater New Orleans Hotel and Lodging Association in opposition to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) of proposed hotel development where the proposed TIF statute was found unconstitutional by the Louisiana Supreme Court (2005).  World Trade Center Taxing District v. All Taxpayers, 05-0374 (La. 6/29/05), 908 So. 2d 623.

Part of legal team that secured a key victory for a federal banking agency in the United States Fifth Circuit. The class action attacked the insured status of a federally insured banking institution.  Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank, 297 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2002).

Part of the legal team in a professional liability case for a federal banking agency that secured an important victory in the United States Fifth Circuit involving the failure of Louisiana’s largest thrift institution (2000).  FDIC v. Barton, 233 F.3d 859 (5th Cir. 2000).


“Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Antitrust and Business Torts Litigation,” ABA Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook, Ch. 9 (3d ed.) 2014.

“Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law,” ABA Intellectual Property Deskbook for the Business Lawyer:  A Transactions-Based Guide to Intellectual Property Law, Ch. 13 (3d ed.) 2013. See http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/products/books/abstracts/5070623_Authors.pdf

“The United States Supreme Court Limits the Ability to Invoke Civil RICO for Lost Tax Revenue,” Defense Research Institute’s The Business Suit, Vol. 13, Issue 10, December 9, 2010.

“Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law,” ABA Intellectual Property Deskbook for the Business Lawyer:  A Transactions-Based Guide to Intellectual Property Law, Ch. 13 (2d ed.) 2009.

“Recent Indictments Serve as Reminder That Communication and Collaboration Among Competitors Can Still Lead to Significant Antitrust Risks,” Liskow & Lewis Monthly E-Newsletter, 2007.

“Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Antitrust and Business Torts Litigation,” ABA Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook, Ch. 9 (2d ed.) 2006.

“Class Action Reform Meets Challenge of Combining Fairness with Accessibility,” 1 ABA Antitrust Sec. Bus. Torts RICO Rep. 12 (2004).

“Control Without Restraint – The Interplay of Antitrust and Trademark Laws in the Franchise Relationship,” (with Marie Breaux), Distribution: Franchise and Dealership Committee Journal, ABA Antitrust Sec., Vol. 6 (2002).

“Elite Domination of College Football: An Analysis of the Antitrust Implications of the Bowl Alliance,” 6 Sports Law J. 57 (1999).


Professional Associations

Mr. Wallace is a member of various distinguished professional organizations, including:

The Defense Research Institute (2008-2015)

Chair of Antitrust and Consumer Protection Special Litigation Group, 2013-2015

Commercial Litigation Committee Steering Committee, 2011-2015

DRI Leader Spotlight Award Recipient, 2012

Vice-Chair of Antitrust, Franchise, and Distribution Special Litigation Group, 2011-2013

American Bar Association (1998-Present)

Member, ABA Antitrust Section, 2000-Present

Member, Business Torts and Civil RICO Committee, 2000-Present

Louisiana Bar Association (1998-Present)

Member, Diversity Section, 2007-Present

Member, Antitrust, Trade Regulation, Business Tort Law Section, 2000-Present

New Orleans Bar Association (1998-Present)

Member of Executive Board of Directors of Young Lawyers Section, 2001-2003

Charitable and Civic Involvement

Mr. Wallace has been involved in several distinguished charitable and civic organizations, including:

Friends of Lakeview (2010-Present)

Founding Member and Board of Directors

VIA LINK - A United Way Agency (2008-Present)

Executive Committee of Board of Directors, 2010-Present

President of Board of Directors, 2011-2013

Lakeview Civic Improvement Association (2007-2015), see https://www.scribd.com/document/66083621/K-Todd-Wallace-Lakeview-Civic-Improvement-Assoc

President of Board of Directors, 2010-2012

Member of Board of Directors, 2009-2014

Chairman of NORA Committee, 2007-2010

Mayor Landrieu's Task Force on Blighted Property (2010-2012)

Member of Mayoral-Appointed Task Force

Lakeview Crime Prevention District (2010-2012)

Secretary of Board of Directors

Professional Presentations

Mr. Wallace frequently gives presentations and seminars on various professional matters, including:

Presenter, Discrimination Based on Physical Appearance – Title VII, ADA, and Other Legal Implications, Meeting of NOLA Society for Human Resource Management, Legal Perks Presentation, May 2018 and July 2018. See https://nola.shrm.org/events/2018/07/legal-perk-july

Presenter, “Ethics and Professionalism: Watch Your P’s and Q’s CLE,” Louisiana State Bar Association, December 2015.

Advisor, Training Seminar on Antitrust and Competition Law Compliance at Fortune 500 Oil and Gas Company Quarterly Meeting in Houston, Texas, February 2014.

Panelist, The Bench, the Bar, and the Academy United to Discuss the Future of Legal Education, Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, January 2013.

Presenter, Antitrust Law Developments of 2012, DRI Commercial Litigation Committee Presentation, DRI Annual Meeting, October 2012.

Advisor, Training Seminar on Antitrust and Competition Law Compliance at MSCI Gulf Region Chapter Annual Meeting in Mobile, Alabama, 2011.

Presenter, The Significance of the Mentor in Developing Professionalism, New Orleans Bar Association, December 2009 and July 2010.

Panelist, Making the Business Case for Diversity, Conclave on Diversity in the Legal Profession Sponsored by the Louisiana State Bar Association, March 2008.

Key Note Speaker, Celebrating the Challenge of Diversity, American Association of Law Librarians National Conference Annual Diversity Symposium, July 2007.

Advisor, Training Seminar on Antitrust and Trade Regulation Compliance at INEOS Americas National Sales Meeting in Sandestin, Florida, April 2005.

Honors and Recognitions

Among the honors and recognitions that Mr. Wallace has received throughout his career are:

Martindell-Hubbell AV Preeminent Peer Review Rating. See https://www.martindale.com/new-orleans/louisiana/kenneth-todd-wallace-604175-a/

Recognized by peers in Super Lawyers in the area of Antitrust Law (2015, 2016).

Named as Top Lawyer in New Orleans Magazine in the area of Antitrust Law (2014, 2015). See http://www.myneworleans.com/New-Orleans-Magazine/November-2013/The-Top-Lawyers-in-New-Orleans/

Top-Rated Lawyer in Commercial Litigation by American Lawyer and Corporate Counsel (2013, 2014).

Featured as Attorney to Watch inaugural issue of Attorney at Law Magazine (2014). See http://www.targetmarketmediapublications.com/attorney-at-law-magazine-new-orleans/

Named to New Orleans CityBusiness' Leadership in Law Class of 2013.

DRI Leader Spotlight Award Recipient (2012).

Peter J. Compagno Citizenship Award Recipient (2010).

Client Reviews

"I have come to rely on Todd and the Wallace Meyaski team for my outside legal advice.  Not only are they an important and excellent resources for our company, but I do not hesitate to refer them to my own clients.”

Margaret Bruzdzinski - Owner and President of CFO 1 Source, LLC

“Todd always goes out of his way to respond quickly to my calls, my emails, and my questions.  He has great instinct on how to handle tough situations and has been a great help to me and my family-run business.”

Larisa Ivanova - Owner, Ivanov’s Gymnastics Academy, Inc.

“The client that I have referred to Todd and to Wallace Meyaski have been extremely satisfied with both the quality of legal services and the professionalism of the customer service they received.  I would highly recommend Todd and Stacey.”

Craig Forshag - Human Resources Professional

News about K Todd Wallace

Website of Law Firm Wallace Meyaski, Kenneth Todd Wallace, New Orleans, Louisiana.

K. Todd Wallace comments on the latest DOJ investigation

Second DOJ antitrust investigation in college admissions in 2018

In April 2018, several universities reported that they received a letter from the U.S Department of Justice, requesting that the universities preserve and maintain certain documents in light of an ongoing investigation. The letter explained that the investigation surrounds potential arrangements that colleges and universities may have pertaining to their early decision admission program and sharing of information between such institutions. 

Specifically, the letter requests that universities and colleges maintain the following information:

- Formal or informal agreements pertaining to sharing identities of accepted students with other institutions.

- Communications with individuals at other institutions pertaining to identities of accepted students

- Internal documents regarding such communication pertaining to identities of accepted students.

- Documents pertaining to actions or decisions based in whole or part on identities of students accepted at other universities.

- Admission record of such identified students.

Although some elite institutions use to share financial aid information of applying students amongst them in the past, the practice stopped as a result of an agreement between the Department of Justice and Ivy League institutions in 1991. The agreement came at the end of a DOJ investigation into the information sharing practice. Although the agreement only involved Ivy League institutions, other institutions followed suit and stayed away from the practice. Recent signs, however, signals that certain institutions may be engaging in information sharing again.

Institutions have publicly said that they are fully cooperating with the DOJ. Some universities have noted important distinctions between the practice in 1991 versus now. First, information being shared now is part of the early decision admission process, which is entirely voluntary.  Second, students consent to such disclosure in the Common Applications utilized by the institutions. 

Interestingly, this is the second DOJ antitrust investigation into college admission standards in this year alone. 

Earlier this year, DOJ launched an investigation into whether the revised National Association for College Admission Counseling ethics code constitutes restraint on trade among the institutions pertaining to recruitment of student athletes. It remains to be seen as to where these investigations will lead, but suffice to say, DOJ antitrust division seems to be taking an interest in university admission policies.

Learn More

Kenneth Todd Wallace is an attorney and founding partner of the law firm Wallace Meyaski LLC. He has nearly 20 years of experience in the legal and business professions with established excellence in trial advocacy, negotiation, strategic and initiative planning, employment law compliance, government relations, mergers and acquisitions, and team building. 

Find out more

K. Todd Wallace comments on Ohio v. American Express

Decision may have far reaching effect in the field of antitrust law.

To ensure that merchants do not dissuade card holders from using Amex instead of other credit cards, American Express has had anti-steering provisions in their contracts with merchants since the 1950’s 

In June 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Ohio v. American Express, which stemmed from a group of states’ challenges to American Express’ anti-steering provision in its contracts with Amex merchants. The anti-steering provision prohibits merchants from discouraging customers from using their Amex card after they have already entered the store and are prepared to buy something, thereby avoiding Amex’s fee.

Antitrust Attorney K. Todd Wallace explains that the underlying issue is one of the fundamental ways that American Express’ business model differs from other credit card issuers such as Visa or Mastercard. 

The Court noted that “[w]hile Visa and MasterCard earn half of their revenue by collecting interest from their cardholders, Amex does not. Amex instead earns most of its revenue from merchant fees. Amex’s business model focuses on cardholder spending rather than cardholder lending. To encourage cardholder spending, Amex provides better rewards than other networks. 

Due to its superior rewards, Amex tends to attract cardholders who are wealthier and spend more money. Merchants place a higher value on these cardholders, and Amex uses this advantage to recruit merchants.” To ensure that merchants do not dissuade card holders from using Amex instead of other credit cards, American Express has implemented anti-steering provisions into their contracts with merchants since the 1950’s. 

Several states sued American Express, asserting that the anti-steering provision violated antitrust laws. After a 7-week trial, the district court ruled in the states’ favor, finding that “that the credit-card market should be treated as two separate markets—one for merchants and one for cardholders.” Thus, “[e]valuating the effects on the merchant side of the market, the District Court found that Amex’s anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive because they result in higher merchant fees.”

The Supreme Court, however, explained that credit card transactions should be evaluated as a two-sided transaction market. “With credit cards, for example, networks often charge cardholders a lower fee than merchants because cardholders are more price sensitive. In fact, the network might well lose money on the cardholder side by offering rewards such as cash back, airline miles, or gift cards. The network can do this because increasing the number of cardholders increases the value of accepting the card to merchants and, thus, increases the number of merchants who accept it. 

Networks can then charge those merchants a fee for every transaction (typically a percentage of the purchase price). Striking the optimal balance of the prices charged on each side of the platform is essential for two-sided platforms to maximize the value of their services and to compete with their rivals.” Therefore, the Court explained that the two-sided transaction market must be evaluated as a whole. Going on to review the anti-steering practice, the Court concluded that American Express’ practice does not violate antitrust laws when both merchant and consumer transactions are viewed in conjunction.

Mr. Wallace notes that the case may have far reaching consequences for other multi-party transactions, including those in health care, where patients, insurance companies, and healthcare providers could certainly be viewed as forming a two-sided transaction like the American Express case. Indeed, Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, notes that such multi-party transactions are rather common. The dissenting opinion argues that “[n]othing in antitrust law, to [Justice Breyer’s] knowledge, suggests that a court, when presented with an agreement that restricts competition in any one of the markets my examples suggest, should abandon traditional market-definition approaches and include in the relevant market services that are complements, not substitutes, of the restrained good.” Mr. Wallace notes that “how widely the Court will apply the multi-party transaction approach to antitrust cases remains to be seen. It is something on which attorneys and businesses in certain industries should keep a careful watch.”

The case is Ohio v. American Express, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_5h26.pdf

Kenneth Todd Wallace is an attorney and founding partner of the law firm Wallace Meyaski LLC

Kenneth Todd Wallace is an attorney and founding partner of the law firm Wallace Meyaski LLC

K. Todd Wallace comments Apple iPhone antitrust litigation

U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear Apple’s appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear Apple’s appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision allowing the litigation to proceed in a case brought against Apple by purchasers of iPhones and iPhone applications (hereinafter “apps”).  In early 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a dismissal by the district court for lack of statutory standing. 

Plaintiffs in the case are purchasers of iPhones and iPhone apps between 2007 and 2013. Plaintiffs allege “that Apple has monopolized and attempted to monopolize the market for iPhone apps.” As familiar to many users, the Ninth Circuit outlined the factual background of the iPhone ecosystem. 

“The iPhone is a ‘closed system,’ meaning that Apple controls which apps— such as ringtones, instant messaging, Internet, video, and the like—can run on an iPhone's software. In 2008, Apple launched the ‘App Store,’ an internet site where iPhone users can find, purchase, and download iPhone apps. Apple has developed some of the apps sold in the App Store, but many of the apps sold in the store have been developed by third-party developers.” Noting that Apple receives a 30% commission from any sale of apps developed by third-party developers, the Ninth Circuit went on to explain that “Apple prohibits app developers from selling iPhone apps through channels other than the App Store, threatening to cut off sales by any developer who violates this prohibition. Apple discourages iPhone owners from downloading unapproved apps, threatening to void iPhone warranties if they do so.”

Plaintiffs’ complaint went through multiple versions and amendments following complex history of legal procedure at the trial level. The last amended complaint addressed only Apple’s monopolization of the iPhone app market. At the trial level, Apple sought and was granted a dismissal based on statutory standing to sue in an antitrust case. 

“Under § 4 of the Clayton Act, ‘any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue . . . and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained[.]’” U.S. Supreme Court has limited the definition of any person under the act in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) to “only ‘the overcharged direct purchaser, and not others in the chain of manufacture or distribution’". 

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit framed the issue as “whether Plaintiffs purchased their iPhone apps directly from the app developers, or directly from Apple. Stated otherwise, the question is whether Apple is a manufacturer or producer, or whether it is a distributor. . . . [I]f Apple is a manufacturer or producer from whom Plaintiffs purchased indirectly, Plaintiffs do not have standing. But if Apple is a distributor from whom Plaintiffs purchased directly, Plaintiffs do have standing.”  

Apple argued that “it does not sell apps but rather sells ‘software distribution services to developers.’ In Apple's view, because it sells distribution services to app developers, it cannot simultaneously be a distributor of apps to app purchasers. Apple analogizes its role to the role of an owner of a shopping mall that ‘leases physical space to various stores.’" The Ninth Circuit rejected Apple’s argument, noting that “part of the anti-competitive behavior alleged by Plaintiffs is that, far from allowing iPhone app developers to sell through their own ‘stores,’ Apple specifically forbids them to do so, instead requiring them to sell iPhone apps only through Apple's App Store.” 

The Ninth Circuit explained that the decision is compelled “on the fundamental distinction between a manufacturer or producer, on the one hand, and a distributor, on the other. Apple is a distributor of the iPhone apps, selling them directly to purchasers through its App Store. 

Because Apple is a distributor, Plaintiffs have standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for allegedly monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the sale of iPhone apps.”

The issue reached by the Ninth Circuit obviously has potential for far reaching effect in the digital age. Many tech companies, such as Google, will likely be watching the Supreme Court case closely as the Court shapes the antitrust exposure of not only Apple but many others who follow such a business model.  The Ninth Circuit case is In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, 846 F.3d 313 (2017), available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13642149723808458466&q=in+re+apple+iphone+antitrust&hl=en&as_sdt=3,47

About Kenneth Todd Wallace

Kenneth Todd Wallace is an attorney and founding partner of the law firm Wallace Meyaski LLC. He has nearly 20 years of experience in the legal and business professions with established excellence in trial advocacy, negotiation, strategic and initiative planning, employment law compliance, government relations, mergers and acquisitions, and team building. 

Law Firm Website: 


Facebook page of the Law Firm: https://www.facebook.com/WallaceMeyaski/

Facebook page of Kenneth Todd Wallace, Attorney at Law: 


LinkedIn Profile of Kenneth Todd Wallace: https://www.linkedin.com/in/k-todd-wallace-03895358/

Lawyer Profile at: http://lawyers.lawyerlegion.com/louisiana/kenneth-todd-wallace-18001529

Attorney Profile: https://www.lawyers.com/new-orleans/louisiana/kenneth-todd-wallace-604175-a/

Attorney Profile: https://solomonlawguild.com/k-todd-wallace

Blog at: http://ktoddwallaceblog.blogspot.com/

Kenneth Todd Wallace is an attorney and founding partner of the law firm Wallace Meyaski LLC.

Kenneth Todd Wallace is an attorney and founding partner of the law firm Wallace Meyaski LLC.