- PROGRAMSCloseBack
- PUBLICATIONS
- SUBSCRIPTIONS
- SPONSORSCloseBack
- JOB BOARDCloseBack
- ABOUT US
- PROGRAMSCloseBack
- PUBLICATIONS
- SUBSCRIPTIONS
- SPONSORSCloseBack
- JOB BOARDCloseBack
- ABOUT US
Choose whether or not to include highlighting and notes in the print view. Depending on your browser, you may have to change print options to include background colors.
- You must be a paid subscriber to access the downloads
-
List of Forms by Chapter - Chapter 1 — The Trial Advocate: Purpose, Talent, and Philosophy
- I. [1.1] What Is a Trial Lawyer?
-
II. [1.2] The Trial Lawyer’s Tools, Skills, and Qualities - [1.3] Case Analysis and Plan
- [1.4] Preparation
- [1.5] Organization — The Trial Notebook
- [1.6] Jury Consultants
- [1.7] Ethics
- Skills and Qualities of the Trial Lawyer
- [1.8] Sincerity
- [1.9] Confidence
- [1.10] Experience and Judgment
- [1.11] Public Speaking
- [1.12] Persuasiveness
- [1.13] The Rule of Threes
- [1.14] The Rule of Recency and Primacy
- [1.15] The 20-Minute Rule
- III. [1.16] Are You A Trial Lawyer?
- Chapter 2 — The Jury: The “Right” to It and the Selection of It
- Chapter 3 — Opening Statement
- I. Introduction
- II. [3.3] Stating a Cause of Action
- III. [3.4] Admissions and Directed Verdicts
- IV. [3.5] Objections and Preserving Error
- V. [3.6] Length and Detail in Opening Statement
- VI. Legal and Practical Aspects
- VII. [3.12] Use of Visual Aids
- VIII. [3.13] Multiple Defendants and Third-Party Actions
- IX. Motions in Limine Prior to Opening Statement
- X. [3.16] Opening in Nonjury Case
- XI. Plaintiff’s Jury Opening Statement
- [3.17] Introductory Comments
- Outline with Suggestions and Examples
- Introduction of Opening Statement
- [3.18] Comments
- [3.19] Example
- Introducing the Parties
- [3.20] Comments
- [3.21] Example
- Introducing the Scene
- [3.22] Comments on a Vehicular Case
- [3.23] Comments on a Construction Case
- Plaintiff’s Theory in Brief
- [3.24] Comments
- [3.25] Example
- [3.26] The Instrumentalities Involved
- [3.27] Background to the Occurrence
- [3.28] The Occurrence
- The Theory with an Introduction to the Law
- [3.29] Comment on Including Caselaw Authority
- [3.30] Example in a Vehicular Case
- [3.31] Comment on Cases Based on Statute
- [3.32] Comment on Theory as Distinguished from Argument
- [3.33] Injuries
- Damages
- [3.34] Comments
- [3.35] Example
- [3.36] Revealing the Ad Damnum
- [3.37] Conclusion of the Opening Statement
- XII. Defendant’s Jury Opening Statement
- [3.38] Comments on Knowing Content and Approach of Plaintiff’s Opening Statement
- [3.39] Comments on Defendant’s Opening Statement
- [3.40] Waiving the Opening Statement
- [3.41] Handling Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims, and Third-Party Actions
- Outline with Suggestions and Examples
- [3.42] Introduction of Opening Statement
- [3.43] Introducing the Defendant
- [3.44] Putting the Case at Issue
- The Defendant’s Version of the Occurrence
- [3.45] Comments
- [3.46] Example
- [3.47] The Theory of the Defendant Under the Law
- [3.48] Handling Damages
- [3.49] Conclusion of Opening Statement
- XIII. [3.50] Example Opening Statements
- Chapter 4 — Presenting Testimony
- I. [4.1] Introduction
- II. Preparation
- Preparation for Direct Examination
- [4.2] Preparing Yourself
- [4.3] Preparing Your Witnesses
- [4.4] Dress, Appearance, and Demeanor
- [4.5] Eliciting the Witness’s Story
- [4.6] Effective Use of Language and Tone
- [4.7] The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But . . .
- [4.8] Dress Rehearsal
- [4.9] Preparation for Cross-Examination
- [4.10] Coaching the Witness
- III. Direct Examination
- [4.11] Placement in the Courtroom
- [4.12] Method of Presenting Testimony
- Form and Content of Questions
- [4.13] Attention to Language
- [4.14] Leading Questions
- [4.15] Other Objectionable Questions
- [4.16] Offering the Inadmissible
- [4.17] Refreshing Recollection
- [4.18] Right to a Responsive Answer
- [4.19] Conduct of Counsel
- IV. Cross-Examination
- V. Impeachment
- VI. Redirect Examination and Recross-Examination
- VII. [4.31] Examination of Opinion Witnesses
- VIII. [4.32] Examination of Adverse Parties or Witnesses
- IX. [4.33] Offers of Proof
- X. [4.34] Conclusion
- Chapter 5 — Preserving the Record During Trial
- I. Introduction
- II. Making the Record
- [5.3] Verifying That All Pretrial Motions Have Been Decided and the Case Is at Issue
- Importance of a Court Reporter
- [5.4] Using a Court Reporter
- [5.5] Knowing the Court Reporter
- [5.6] Helping the Court Reporter
- Avoiding Mistakes or Ambiguity in the Testimony
- [5.7] Names, Addresses, Numbers, Dates, and Pronouns
- [5.8] Gestures, Distances, and References to Exhibits by Witnesses
- [5.9] Gestures, Asides, and Disruptions by Counsel or the Court
- [5.10] Evidence Must Be Introduced in Order To Be Part of the Trial Record
- Handling Exhibits
- [5.11] Marking Exhibits
- [5.12] Referring to Exhibits After They Have Been Marked
- [5.13] Offering Exhibits into Evidence
- [5.14] Making Certain the Record and Exhibits Reflect Admission
- [5.15] Making Certain the Record Reflects Exclusions
- [5.16] Obtaining a Ruling on the Admission of Exhibits
- [5.17] Withdrawing Exhibits
- [5.18] Demonstrations and Experiments by Witnesses or Counsel
- [5.19] Making the Record on Demonstrative Evidence
- [5.20] Limited Offer — Evidence Admissible Only for Certain Purposes
- III. Preserving the Record
- Objections
- [5.21] Purpose
- [5.22] Effect of Failure To Object
- [5.23] Exceptions to Waiving Objections by Failing To Timely Object
- [5.24] Plain-Error Doctrine
- [5.25] Parties with Special Needs
- [5.26] Useless Act Objections Not Required
- [5.27] Judicial Misconduct
- [5.28] Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases
- [5.29] Sufficiency of Objection — General Objections, Specific Objections, and Incorrect Specific Objections
- [5.30] Timeliness of Objections and Moving To Strike Testimony
- [5.31] Motions To Strike Testimony and Instructing the Jury To Disregard
- [5.32] Evidence Admissible for Certain Purposes — Limiting Instructions
- [5.33] Motions for Mistrial
- Rulings on Objections
- [5.34] Necessity for Rulings on Objections
- [5.35] Reasons for Rulings on Objections
- [5.36] Reserved or Conditional Rulings on Objections and Moving To Strike Previously “Admitted” Evidence
- Effects of Rulings on Objections
- [5.37] Overruled Objections
- Sustained Objections
- [5.38] Offer of Proof Required
- [5.39] When an Offer of Proof Should Be Made
- [5.40] Presence of Jury for an Offer of Proof
- [5.41] Proper Form of the Offer of Proof
- [5.42] Sufficiency of the Offer of Proof
- [5.43] Objections to the Offer of Proof
- [5.44] Necessity of a Posttrial Motion
- Tactical Considerations
- [5.45] When To Object or Move for a Mistrial
- [5.46] Manner of Objecting
- [5.47] Objections During Opening Statements and Closing Arguments
- Chapter 6 — Presenting the Plaintiff’s Case
- I. [6.1] Introduction
- II. [6.7] Discovery
- [6.8] Public Documents
- [6.9] Police Reports and Other Records
- [6.10] Ambulance Reports
- [6.11] Coroner’s Records
- [6.12] Building Permits
- [6.13] Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards
- [6.14] Liquor License Records
- [6.15] Tract Books
- [6.16] Illinois Department of Transportation Records
- [6.17] License and Title Registrations
- [6.18] Interrogatories
- [6.19] Production Request (Supreme Court Rule 214)
- [6.20] Notice To Produce at Trial (Supreme Court Rule 237(b))
- III. [6.21] Jury Selection
- IV. Opening Statement
- V. [6.35] Visual Evidence
- VI. Witnesses
- VII. [6.44] Expert Witnesses
- [6.45] Preparation for Deposition of the Opponent’s Expert Witnesses — Interrogatories
- [6.46] Examination of the Expert in Deposition and Trial Regarding Qualifications
- [6.47] Examination of the Expert in Deposition and Trial Regarding Methodology and Application of Methodology
- [6.48] Examination of the Expert in Deposition and Trial Regarding the Basis of the Expert’s Opinion
- [6.49] Expert’s Opinions and Reasons
- [6.50] Language of the Expert
- [6.51] Common Errors in Interrogation
- [6.52] Expert’s Exhibits
- VIII. [6.53] Voluntary Dismissal of Certain Defendants
- IX. [6.54] Rebuttal
- X. [6.55] Itemized Verdict
- XI. Mandatory Arbitration Issues
- XII. [6.60] Conclusion
- Chapter 7 — Motions During and at the Close of Plaintiff’s Case-in-Chief
- I. [7.1] Introduction: Nature and Purpose of Motions During and at the Close of the Plaintiff’s Case
- II. Motion Practice in General — When, Where, and How To Present Motions
- III. [7.5] Motions in Limine
- IV. Motions at the Outset of Trial
- V. Motions Regarding Evidence
- VI. [7.15] How To Combat Motions Limiting Evidence: Offers of Proof
- VII. [7.16] Motions for Mistrial
- [7.17] Timing for Motions for Mistrial
- [7.18] Motions for Mistrial Because of Violations of in Limine Orders
- [7.19] Motions for Mistrial Because of Conduct of Counsel
- [7.20] Motions for Mistrial Because of Conduct of a Party or Witness
- [7.21] Mistrials Involving Juror Issues
- [7.22] The Effect of Mistrial
- VIII. [7.23] Amendments to Pleadings
- IX. [7.24] Motions for Directed Finding and Directed Verdict
- X. [7.25] Conclusion
- Chapter 8 — Presenting the Defendant’s Case
- I. [8.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. [8.2] The Importance of Form
- III. [8.3] Getting Organized Flexibly: The Trial Notebook and Other Pretrial Considerations
- IV. [8.4] Assisting the Jury To Understand
- V. [8.5] Your Relationship with the Judge
- VI. [8.6] The Role of Cross-Examination
- VII. [8.7] Order of Proof
- VIII. [8.8] Direct Examination
- IX. [8.9] The Hostile Witness and the Adverse Witness
- X. [8.10] The Expert Witness
- XI. [8.11] Conclusion
- Chapter 9 — Motions During and at the Close of Defendant's Case-in-Chief
- I. Introduction
- II. [9.6] Motions in Limine
- III. [9.7] Motions for Issuance of a Bench Warrant
- IV. [9.8] Motions To Separate or Exclude Witnesses
- V. [9.9] Motions To Change Order of Proof
- VI. [9.10] Motions To Limit Testimony
- VII. [9.11] Motions To Exclude and Strike Evidence
- VIII. [9.17] Enforcement of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 237(b) and Motions for Inspection
- IX. [9.18] Motions for Mistrial
- X. [9.24] Motions To Suppress
- XI. [9.25] Motions for Recess or Temporary Adjournment
- XII. [9.26] Extraordinary Motions
- XIII. [9.27] Motions To Reopen Case
- XIV. [9.28] Motions During Rebuttal and Surrebuttal
- XV. [9.29] Motions To Amend Pleadings
- XVI. [9.30] Motions at the Close of the Defendant’s Case-in-Chief
- Chapter 10 — Motions at the Close of the Evidence
- I. [10.1] Introduction
- II. Motion for a Continuance
- III. [10.4] Plaintiff’s Motion To Voluntarily Dismiss
- IV. [10.5] Motions To Strike Evidence
- V. [10.8] Motion To Amend Pleadings
- VI. [10.9] Motion for Judgment in Nonjury Cases
- VII. [10.10] Motion for Directed Verdict in Jury Cases
- VIII. [10.16] Conclusion
- IX. [10.17] Appendix — Forms
- [10.18] Motion for a Continuance
- [10.19] Motion for a Directed Verdict by Plaintiff
- [10.20] Order for Plaintiff’s Directed Verdict
- [10.21] Verdict in Case in Which Plaintiff Has Received a Directed Verdict
- [10.22] Motion for Directed Verdict by Defendant (Long Form)
- [10.23] Motion for Directed Verdict by Defendant (Short Form)
- [10.24] Order for Defendant’s Directed Verdict
- Chapter 11 — Jury Instructions, Special Interrogatories, and Verdicts
- I. [11.1] Introduction
- II. Jury Instructions
- [11.2] Applicable Rules
- [11.3] Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions Generally
- Drafting Jury Instructions
- [11.4] Who Drafts the Instructions?
- [11.5] When Should the Instructions Be Submitted?
- [11.6] What Should the Instructions Include?
- How Should the Instructions Be Drafted?
- Use of the I.P.I.
- [11.7] The I.P.I. must be used if accurate and applicable
- [11.8] The I.P.I. is subject to challenge
- [11.9] Non-Pattern Instructions
- Other General Drafting Considerations
- [11.10] Do not define common terms
- [11.11] Avoid repetition and inconsistency
- [11.12] Do not lift language from court opinions
- [11.13] Focus on theory of the case
- [11.14] Form and Appearance
- [11.15] Presentment to the Court
- [11.16] Timing of Instruction Conference
- Objections
- [11.17] Must Be Specific and Tender Alternative
- [11.18] Typical Objections
- [11.19] Party Cannot Claim Error if Court Gives an Instruction the Party Tendered
- [11.20] The Court’s Decision
- [11.21] When Is The Jury Instructed?
- Responding To Jury Questions About Instructions
- [11.22] Whether To Answer
- [11.23] Submit Proposed Response
- Practice Tips
- [11.24] Use Instructions To Prepare Closing Argument
- [11.25] Consider Enlarging Instructions for Closing Argument
- [11.26] Winning the Battle of the Instructions
- [11.27] Do Not Seek Instructions That Misstate the Law
- [11.28] Posttrial Motions
- [11.29] Bring a Court Reporter to Instruction Conference
- [11.30] Review Materials Court Provides to Jury
- [11.31] Object to Jury’s Failure To Follow Jury Instructions Before The Jury is Excused
- III. Special Interrogatories and General Verdicts
- General Verdict
- [11.32] General Verdict Defined
- [11.33] Construction of General Verdict
- [11.34] Special Interrogatories
- [11.35] Special Interrogatories Serve as a Check on the Jury’s Verdict
- [11.36] When To Seek Special Interrogatories
- [11.37] Proper Form of Special Interrogatories
- [11.38] Time To Tender Special Interrogatories
- [11.39] No Discretion To Refuse Proper Interrogatories
- Objections to Special Interrogatories
- [11.40] Must Be Specific and Before Submission to Jury
- Grounds for Objections
- [11.41] Objections to Form (Compound, Misleading, Etc.)
- [11.42] Not Inconsistent with Any Possible Verdict
- [11.43] Evidentiary Questions
- [11.44] Unsupported by the Evidence/Not in Issue
- [11.45] Question of Law
- [11.46] Do Not Argue to the Jury That Special Interrogatory Answers Must Be Consistent with the General Verdict
- [11.47] What Happens if Jury Fails To Answer a Special Interrogatory
- [11.48] Special Interrogatory Inconsistent with the General Verdict
- [11.49] Internally Inconsistent Verdict
- Preserving Right To Appeal
- [11.50] Special Interrogatories Consistent with General Verdict
- [11.51] Special Interrogatories Inconsistent with General Verdict
- [11.52] Other Problems with the Verdict
- IV. [11.53] I.P.I. Verdict Form Questions
- V. Special Verdicts
- VI. [11.56] Itemized Verdicts
- Chapter 12 — Closing Argument
- I. [12.1] Introduction
- II. The Law of Closing Arguments — Fundamental Principles
- [12.2] Right to Closing Argument and Waiver of That Right
- [12.3] The Order of Closing Arguments
- [12.4] Time To Prepare
- [12.5] Time Limits on Closing Argument
- [12.6] Presence of Judge and Court Reporter
- [12.7] Scope of Closing Argument
- [12.8] Scope of Rebuttal Argument
- [12.9] Invited Response
- [12.10] Using Evidentiary Exhibits Admitted During Trial
- [12.11] Using Visual Aids Other than Exhibits Admitted into Evidence
- [12.12] Need for Objection to Improper Argument/Preserving Error
- III. The Law of Closing Arguments — Legal Rules Governing Specific Situations
- [12.13] Comments Concerning Opposing Counsel
- [12.14] Comments Concerning Witnesses
- [12.15] Comments Concerning Corporate Status of Party
- [12.16] Comments Concerning Excluded Evidence
- [12.17] Adverse Inference for Failure To Produce Witnesses and Documents
- [12.18] Commenting on Jury Instructions
- [12.19] Special Interrogatories
- [12.20] Passion and Prejudice
- [12.21] Reading from a Pleading
- [12.22] Reading from Testimony or Replaying It on Video
- [12.23] The “Golden Rule” Argument
- [12.24] References to Religion
- [12.25] Court Rulings and Controlling Law
- [12.26] References to Particular Jurors
- [12.27] Financial Positions of the Parties
- [12.28] Insurance Coverage
- IV. The Argument Itself — Techniques, Strategies, and Practice Pointers
- [12.29] Preparation of Argument
- [12.30] Counsel’s Credibility
- [12.31] Methods of Emphasis
- [12.32] Argument Phase: The Introduction
- [12.33] Relating Argument to Comments by the Court or to Facts Learned During Voir Dire
- [12.34] Discussion of Neutral Witnesses
- [12.35] Argument Phase: Jury Instructions
- [12.36] Burdens of Proof
- [12.37] Argument Phase: Discussion of Damages
- [12.38] Using Humor, Sarcasm, or Ridicule
- [12.39] Anticipating Rebuttal
- [12.40] Should Witnesses Be Accused of Lying?
- Handling Weaknesses in Your Case
- [12.41] The Client with No Jury Appeal
- [12.42] Conflict Among Counsel’s Own Witnesses
- [12.43] Troublesome Witnesses
- V. [12.44] Final Practice Pointers
- Chapter 13 — Return of the Verdict and Entry of Judgment
- I. [13.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. [13.2] Problems Arising During Jury Deliberations
- III. Return of the Verdict
- IV. [13.17] Polling the Jury
- V. [13.21] Amendment or Correction of the Verdict
- VI. [13.25] Entry of Judgment on the Verdict
- VII. [13.28] Entry of Judgment When There Is No Verdict of the Jury
- VIII. [13.29] Written Judgment Orders
- IX. [13.30] Summary of Applicable Sections of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure and Illinois Supreme Court Rules
- Chapter 14 — Posttrial Motions
- I. Introduction
- II. Nature of Available Motions
- III. Procedure
- [14.10] In General
- [14.11] Illinois State Courts
- [14.12] Posttrial Motions in Jury Cases
- [14.13] One Motion
- [14.14] No Condition Precedent
- [14.15] Specification of Grounds
- [14.16] Time To File
- [14.17] Necessity of Cross-Motion
- [14.18] Further Motion if Posttrial Relief Granted to Opponent
- [14.19] Posttrial Motion After Reversal
- [14.20] Posttrial Motion Subsequent to a Directed Verdict or Partial Summary Judgment in a Jury Case
- [14.21] Amendment
- [14.22] Ruling on Motions
- [14.23] Stay of Enforcement and Extension of Time To Appeal
- [14.24] Successive Motions Prohibited
- [14.25] Effect of Motion for New Trial
- [14.26] Form of Posttrial Motion in Illinois State Court
- [14.27] Motions After Judgment in Nonjury Cases
- [14.28] Stay of Enforcement and Extension of Time To Appeal
- [14.29] Other Relief
- [14.30] Successive Motions Prohibited
- [14.31] Federal Courts
- Posttrial Motions in Jury Cases
- [14.32] Differences from Illinois State Court Procedures
- [14.33] Motion and Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50
- [14.34] Motion for New Trial or To Amend Judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59
- [14.35] Posttrial Motions in Nonjury Cases
- [14.36] Form of Posttrial Motion in Federal Court
- IV. [14.37] Contents of the Motion
- [14.38] Types of Posttrial Relief and Grounds
- [14.39] Grounds for Arrest of Judgment
- [14.40] Grounds for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
- [14.41] Grounds for New Trial
- [14.42] Verdicts Not Supported by Evidence
- [14.43] Improper Verdicts
- [14.44] Defects in Pleadings
- [14.45] Evidence Discovered After Trial
- [14.46] Affidavits
- [14.47] Other Grounds
- Grounds for Posttrial Relief as to Amount of Judgment
- [14.48] New Trial on the Issue of Damages
- [14.49] Remittitur
- [14.50] Illinois state practice
- [14.51] Federal practice
- [14.52] Form of request
- [14.53] Additur
- [14.54] Reduction of Judgment Because of Covenant Not To Sue
- [14.55] Reduction in Amount of Recovery Due to Payments from Collateral Source
- Specification of Points or Errors
- [14.56] Separate Statements of Errors
- [14.57] Permitted or Refused Evidence
- [14.58] Misconduct of Counsel
- [14.59] Verdict Against the Evidence
- [14.60] Giving or Refusing of Tendered Instructions
- [14.61] Careful Review of Record
- V. Other Motions After Trial
- Hugh B. Arnold
Hugh B. Arnold
Hugh B. Arnold is the Founder of Arnold and Kadjan, LLP, in Chicago, where he practices in the areas of labor law, ERISA litigation, and negligence litigation. He is a member of the American, Illinois State, and Chicago Bar Associations. Mr. Arnold received his J.D. from DePaul University College of Law.
- Robert L. Byman
Robert L. Byman
Robert L. Byman is Of Counsel with Jenner & Block LLP, in Chicago, where he concentrates his practice in commercial litigation. Mr. Byman is a recipient of a 2018 Northern District of Illinois Award for Excellence in Pro Bono Service, is Past President of the American College of Trial Lawyers (2013 – 2018), and is a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers (2014 – 2018). He is an adjunct professor at Notre Dame College of Law (2016 – present). Mr. Byman received his B.A. from the University of Illinois and his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law.
- Robert Marc Chemers
Robert Marc Chemers
Robert Marc Chemers is a Senior Equity Partner at Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, in Chicago where he focuses on complex civil litigation, insurance coverage, and appeals. He is a Fellow of the American College of Coverage Counsel and a member of the Illinois State and Chicago Bar Associations. Mr. Chemers received his B.A. magna cum laude from the University of Southern California and his J.D. cum laude from Indiana University School of Law.
- Kayla A. Condeni
Kayla A. Condeni
Kayla A. Condeni is an associate at Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, in Chicago, where she focuses her practice on medical malpractice defense. Ms. Condeni received her B.A. cum laude from the University of Notre Dame and her J.D. cum laude from Loyola University Chicago School of Law.
- Elizabeth C. Curtin
Elizabeth C. Curtin
Elizabeth C. Curtin is a Partner at Sidley Austin LLP in Chicago, where she concentrates her practice in products liability. Ms. Curtin received her B.S. from Duke University and her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.
- Shelby L. Drury
Shelby L. Drury
Shelby L. Drury is Of Counsel to Novack and Macey LLP in Chicago, where she focuses her practice on commercial litigation. Ms. Drury received her B.S. with Bronze Tablet distinction (top three percent of class) from the University of Illinois and her J.D. cum laude from Northwestern University School of Law.
- Paul M. Egan
Paul M. Egan
Paul M. Egan is a Partner at Arnold and Kadjan, LLP, in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on personal injury, workers’ compensation, and ERISA litigation. He is a member of the American Bar Association. Mr. Egan received his B.A. from the University of Illinois and his J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law.
- Stacie R. Hartman
Stacie R. Hartman
Stacie R. Hartman is a Partner at Schiff Hardin LLP in Chicago and New York, where she concentrates her practice in complex litigation in financial markets. She is a member of the American Bar Association Derivatives and Futures Law Committee, the Women in White Collar Defense Association, and the Chicago Bar Association Futures and Derivatives Law Committee. Ms. Hartman studied at St. Catherine’s College — Oxford University (1991 – 1992), received her B.A. from Northwestern University, and received her J.D. from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. She was a Judicial Extern for the Honorable George Marovich of the Northern District of Illinois.
- Laura A. Kelly
Laura A. Kelly
Laura A. Kelly is an associate at Baker McKenzie in Chicago, where she focuses her practice on litigation. She is a member of the American and Chicago Bar Associations. Ms. Kelly received her B.A. cum laude from Vanderbilt University and her J.D. cum laude from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
- Bojan Manojlovic
Bojan Manojlovic
Bojan Manojlovic is an associate at Sidley Austin LLP in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on products liability. He is a Graduate Public Interest Law Initiative Fellow at the Environmental Law & Policy Center. Mr. Manojlovic received his B.A. from Northwestern University and his J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School.
- Michael C. McCutcheon
Michael C. McCutcheon
Michael C. McCutcheon is a Partner at Baker McKenzie in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on international commercial litigation and arbitration. Mr. McCutcheon is a member of the Trial Bar for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Seventh Circuit Bar Association, and the Chicago Bar Association. Mr. McCutcheon received his B.S. from the University of Illinois and his J.D. from Loyola University Chicago School of Law.
- Timothy J. Miller
Timothy J. Miller
Timothy J. Miller is a Partner at Novack and Macey LLP in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on civil litigation and legal malpractice defense. He is a member of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers and the Chicago Bar Association. He is also a Martindale Hubbell Premiere Attorney. Mr. Miller received his B.A. summa cum laude from Alma College, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and his J.D. with high honors, Order of the Coif, from Duke University School of Law, where he was Managing Editor of the Duke Law Journal.
- Richard L. Miller II
Richard L. Miller II
Richard L. Miller II is a Partner at Miller LLP in Chicago where he focuses on commercial litigation and class actions. He is an adjunct professor at Northwestern College of Law where he has served as an instructor for Trial Advocacy since 2005 and Advanced Trial Advocacy since 2013. He is an American Arbitration Association arbitrator and has served as an arbitrator for the Cook County Mandatory Arbitration Program and FINRA. He was named one of the 40 Illinois Attorneys Under Forty To Watch by the Law Bulletin Publishing Company, publishers of the Chicago Lawyer and Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. Mr. Miller graduated magna cum laude from the University of Illinois College of Business and graduated cum laude from the University of Illinois College of Law.
- Telly C. Nakos
Telly C. Nakos
Telly C. Nakos is a Partner at O’Connor & Nakos, Ltd., in Chicago, where he concentrates his practice in personal injury. He has been named an Illinois Super Lawyer and has received the American College of Trial Lawyers Award and the American Institute of Personal Injury Attorneys Award. Mr. Nakos attended Oxford University — Keble College C.M.R.S. and received his undergraduate degree from Wabash College and his J.D. from Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
- Kyle R. Olson
Kyle R. Olson
Kyle R. Olson is a Senior Associate at Baker McKenzie in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on litigation and arbitration. He is a member of the American, Illinois State, and Chicago Bar Associations. Mr. Olson received his B.A. magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, from Wake Forest University, his M.A. with Merit from King’s College London, and his J.D. cum laude from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
- Andrew P. Shelby
Andrew P. Shelby
Andrew P. Shelby is a Partner at Novack and Macey LLP in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on commercial litigation. He has been named one of 40 Illinois Attorneys Under 40 to Watch (2018), a Super Lawyers Rising Star (2012 – 2019), and an Emerging Lawyer (2018). Mr. Shelby received his B.A. with distinction from Kenyon College and his J.D. cum laude from Maurer School of Law at Indiana University.
- Timothy A. Weaver
Timothy A. Weaver
Timothy A. Weaver is an Equity Partner at Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on medical malpractice. He received the Career Achievement Award for Trial Lawyer Excellence from the Law Bulletin Publishing Company (2015) and the Wisconsin Defense Counsel Publication Award (2014). He was named a Leading Lawyer in Medical Malpractice Defense and is an Advocate of the American Board of Trial Advocates. Mr. Weaver received his A.B. cum laude from Brown University and his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law.
Civil Practice: Trying the Case 2019 Edition
An IICLE® Online Library subscription is required to view this content. For more information or to subscribe, click here.
Free monthly e-updates in 15 practice areas