Lawrence A. VandenBout

Tiemeier & Stich, P.C.
1000 East 16th Ave
Den­ver, CO 80218

Direct: (720) 473‑7522
Phone: (303) 531‑0022
Fax: (303) 531‑0021


Lawrence Van­den­Bout is a tri­al lawyer who spe­cial­izes in com­plex com­mer­cial busi­ness lit­i­ga­tion, real estate and con­struc­tion lit­i­ga­tion, landlord/tenant lit­i­ga­tion, insur­ance cov­er­age lit­i­ga­tion, and appeals.  Mr. Van­den­Bout han­dles every aspect of his cas­es from the ini­tial demand and com­plaint, to dis­cov­ery, plead­ings, pre-tri­al motions, and tri­al.

While Mr. Van­den­Bout has suc­cess­ful­ly tried mul­ti­ple cas­es, he under­stands that many times the most effi­cient and effec­tive res­o­lu­tion to a legal dis­pute occurs out­side the court­room and through the process of alter­na­tive dis­pute res­o­lu­tion.  He has been suc­cess­ful in nego­ti­at­ing many favor­able set­tle­ments for his clients.  Mr. Van­den­Bout also uti­lizes his expe­ri­ence to coun­sel and assist clients in devel­op­ing strate­gies for min­i­miz­ing the risk of becom­ing involved in poten­tial legal dis­putes in the future.

A native of south­east­ern New Mex­i­co, Mr. Van­den­Bout attend­ed the Uni­ver­si­ty of New Mex­i­co where he grad­u­at­ed, cum laude, from the University’s Ander­son School of Man­age­ment, with a con­cen­tra­tion in Finan­cial Man­age­ment.  There­after, Mr. Van­den­Bout attend­ed the Uni­ver­si­ty of New Mex­i­co School of Law where he grad­u­at­ed, magna cum laude, in 2013.  He excelled while in law school earn­ing numer­ous hon­ors, includ­ing a Dean’s Award for his sig­nif­i­cant con­tri­bu­tions to the law school com­mu­ni­ty, a Clin­i­cal Hon­ors Award for his out­stand­ing work per­for­mance in the Busi­ness and Tax Law Clin­ic, the CALI Excel­lence for the Future Award in sev­er­al class­es for attain­ing the high­est grade in the class, and Dean’s List.

Mr. Van­den­Bout began his career at a pre­em­i­nent civ­il lit­i­ga­tion law firm in Albu­querque, NM, where his prac­tice includ­ed lit­i­gat­ing com­plex com­mer­cial busi­ness and insur­ance cov­er­age dis­putes.  In 2014, he moved to Den­ver and joined Tiemeier & Stich. In his off hours, he enjoys spend­ing time with his wife and young daugh­ter. He also enjoys golf and get­ting out in Den­ver.


2013 J.D., Uni­ver­si­ty of New Mex­i­co School of Law, Albu­querque, NM 

2009 B.A., Uni­ver­si­ty of New Mex­i­co, Albu­querque, NM

Bar Admisisons


New Mex­i­co

Significant Trial, Litigation, And Appellant Experience

  • In an action filed with the Col­orado Court of Appeals, Mr. Van­den­Bout suc­cess­ful­ly argued against the rever­sal of a judg­ment he obtained in favor of his client entered by the dis­trict court who found his client, a com­mer­cial con­trac­tor, was enti­tled to relief from a sub­con­trac­tor who failed to ful­ly per­form the ser­vices it was oblig­at­ed to per­form under the par­ties’ con­tract and found the ser­vices actu­al­ly per­formed by the sub­con­trac­tor were defec­tive.

  • After tri­al on the mer­its, judg­ment was entered in favor of Mr. VandenBout’s clients on a claim of bail­ment. The plain­tiff claimed Mr. VandenBout’s clients were liable for the loss of per­son­al prop­er­ty the plain­tiff had left on real prop­er­ty his clients pur­chased to oper­ate their machine shop busi­ness. Mr. Van­den­Bout proved lia­bil­i­ty could not be assessed against his clients because the alleged agree­ment to safe keep the plaintiff’s per­son­al prop­er­ty was between the plain­tiff and the pri­or own­er of the real prop­er­ty, his clients did not have knowl­edge of the agree­ment nor did they have knowl­edge that the plaintiff’s per­son­al prop­er­ty was alleged­ly locat­ed on their real prop­er­ty, and there was no spe­cif­ic pur­pose between his clients and the plain­tiff for the bail­ment, which was a required ele­ment of the plaintiff’s claim under the cir­cum­stances.

  • After a tri­al on a claim of replevin, judg­ment was entered in favor of Mr. VandenBout’s client, an indus­tri­al farm­ing enti­ty. The plain­tiff was seek­ing to replevy cer­tain agri­cul­tur­al prod­ucts. Mr. Van­den­Bout estab­lished, through an admis­sion by the plain­tiff made upon cross-exam­i­na­tion, that the plain­tiff had no right to the per­son­al prop­er­ty its was seek­ing to replevy.

  • Mr. Van­den­Bout suc­cess­ful­ly defend­ed a vet­eri­nar­i­an at an arbi­tra­tion pro­ceed­ing from a breach of con­tract claim brought by a nation­al vet­eri­nary radi­og­ra­phy com­pa­ny by estab­lish­ing, upon cross-exam­i­na­tion of the plaintiff’s CEO, that the plain­tiff suf­fered no dam­ages.

  • After a one-day arbi­tra­tion hear­ing, judg­ment was entered in favor of Mr. VandenBout’s client on all claims brought by a roof­ing com­pa­ny relat­ed to the re-roof­ing of a com­mer­cial ware­house. The roof­ing com­pa­ny claimed Mr. VandenBout’s client, the own­er of the ware­house, breached an agree­ment to allow the com­pa­ny to re-roof the build­ing. Mr. Van­den­Bout suc­cess­ful­ly defend­ed against such claims by prov­ing the roof­ing com­pa­ny failed to get the insur­ance claim approved and to re-roof the build­ing with­in a rea­son­able time as required under the agree­ment.

  • Mr. Van­den­Bout obtained pre-tri­al dis­missal of claims brought against his client seek­ing repay­ment of more than $200,000 in loans by estab­lish­ing the plain­tiff failed to meet con­di­tions prece­dent to his right to demand repay­ment of the loans, which Mr. Van­den­Bout also proved were not due and owing.

  • Mr. Van­den­Bout suc­cess­ful­ly filed a motion for sum­ma­ry judg­ment on a fraud claim brought by the ten­ant of his client’s com­mer­cial build­ing relat­ed to the con­di­tion of the roof by uti­liz­ing evi­dence obtained in dis­cov­ery that estab­lished the claim lack legal mer­it.

  • Mr. Van­den­Bout obtained a pre-tri­al dec­la­ra­tion from the dis­trict court in favor of his client, a real estate devel­op­ment com­pa­ny, that the City of Brighton had a con­trac­tu­al oblig­a­tion to relo­cate a sew­er pipeline that was inter­fer­ing with his client’s devel­op­ment of prop­er­ty, which the City refused to relo­cate pri­or to said court dec­la­ra­tion.