Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
440648521
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone
5736355215
Rating
41
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,243,898
Expenses
$2,202,653
Assets
$1,921,019
Liabilities
$830,832

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

144 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RANDY ALBERHASKY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARA SCHUETT (EXEC DIRECTO): $381,846 total reported compensation
  • KATHRYN BRANDSTETTER (DIRECTOR OF): $177,433 total reported compensation
  • MICHELE PETERS (ADMINISTRATI): $150,976 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To uphold and defend the constitutions of the united states & the state of Missouri; advance the science of jurisprudence; uphold the honor of the legal profession; to preserve the adversary system & right to trial by jury; to provide educational seminars & publish legal periodicals to educate its members, judges, and attorneys.

What it reported doing in 2025

Continuing legal education and annual convention - the Missouri association of trial attorneys presented an annual convention featuring continuing legal education seminars and offered interactive/live tele-conference seminars via the internet on topics of interest to members of the trial bar. The seminars offered programs for members to earn required continuing legal education credits and to gain knowledge of new technology and skills in the art of advocacy to help them better serve their clients. Presentation of seminars via the internet allowed members to participate in live seminars from their offices which reduce the time required to attend seminars in locations around the state, thus enabling them to have additional time to serve their clients and reduce costs associated with complying with the mandatory cle requirements to maintain their license to practice law. Interactive teleconference seminars presented members the opportunity to gain skills from national, state and regional speakers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 97% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.8%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 139 of 139 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $382K · 144 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $362K reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.