- PROGRAMS
- PUBLICATIONSCloseBack
- SUBSCRIPTIONS
- RESOURCE HUBCloseBack
- ABOUT US
- PROGRAMS
- PUBLICATIONSCloseBack
- SUBSCRIPTIONS
- RESOURCE HUBCloseBack
- ABOUT US
- You must be a paid subscriber to access the downloads
-
List of Forms by Chapter - Chapter 1 — Initial Evaluation of the Case
-
I. Introduction - II. Initial Contact with the Client
- [1.3] Ensuring Against Conflicts
- [1.4] Westinghouse v. Kerr-McGee
- [1.5] Presumption of Shared Confidences
- [1.6] Unrelated Matters, Past Relationship, and Showing of Conflict
- [1.7] Multicity Firms
- [1.8] Potential Spousal Conflicts
- [1.9] Nonprofessional Activities
- [1.10] Appealing Disqualification Motions
- [1.11] Waiver of Conflicts; Sample Letter
- [1.12] Potential for Becoming a Witness
- [1.13] Identification of the Client; Sample Questions
- [1.14] Identification of the Problem
- [1.15] Ethical Considerations
- [1.16] The Obligation To Understand Technology
- [1.17] The Obligation To Act in Good Faith
- [1.18] Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137
- [1.19] Representation Agreement; Sample Letter
- [1.20] Litigation Budgets
- III. Initial Evaluation
- [1.21] Review and Preservation of the Client’s Files and Records; Sample Letter
- [1.22] Organization of Documents
- [1.23] Government Investigations and the McNulty Memorandum
- [1.24] Interviews with Officers and Employees
- [1.25] Interviews with Witnesses
- [1.26] Nonparty Witnesses
- [1.27] Adverse Parties
- [1.28] Formation of the Litigation Team
- Instructions to the Client
- [1.29] Media Communications
- [1.30] Statements by Personnel and Friendly Witnesses
- IV. Decision To Institute Suit
- V. [1.35] Conclusion
- VI. [1.36] Form of Protective Order
- Chapter 2 — Pleadings and Motions in Business and Commercial Cases
- I. [2.1] Introduction
- II. Pleadings
- [2.2] Fact Pleading in State Court
- [2.3] Notice Pleading in Federal Court and the Impact of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly on the Federal Notice Pleading Standard
- [2.4] Complaint
- [2.5] Considerations Prior to Drafting
- Drafting the Complaint
- [2.6] General Suggestions
- [2.7] Practical Considerations
- [2.8] Alleging Facts “Upon Information and Belief” and Incorporating Facts by Reference
- [2.9] Elements of the Complaint
- Format
- [2.10] Pleading Actions at Law and in Equity
- [2.11] Caption
- [2.12] Jurisdictional Allegations
- [2.13] Claims
- [2.14] Use of separate counts
- [2.15] Use of exhibits and “judicial notice”
- Consideration for certain claims
- [2.16] Pleading fraud or mistake
- [2.17] Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
- [2.18] Demand futility under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1
- [2.19] Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
- [2.20] Class actions
- [2.21] Prayer for Relief
- [2.22] Verification
- [2.23] Jury Demand
- [2.24] Applicable Local Rules
- Other Considerations
- [2.25] Filing an Appearance — General vs. Special
- [2.26] Summons
- [2.27] Service and Waiver of Service
- [2.28] Disclosure Statement (Federal Court)
- Answer
- [2.29] General Conditions
- Format
- [2.30] Form of Denial
- [2.31] Allegations of Lack of Knowledge
- [2.32] Affirmative Defenses
- [2.33] Verification
- [2.34] Jury Demand
- [2.35] Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project
- [2.36] Counterclaims and Cross-Claims
- [2.37] State Practice
- [2.38] Federal Practice
- Reply
- [2.39] State Practice
- [2.40] Federal Practice
- [2.41] Third-Party Practice
- Pleading Schedule
- [2.42] State Practice
- [2.43] Federal Practice
- Amendments of Pleadings
- [2.44] General Considerations
- State vs. Federal
- [2.45] Illinois Law
- [2.46] Federal Law
- [2.47] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) — Amendments as of right or by leave of court
- [2.48] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b) — Amendments to conform to the evidence
- [2.49] Relation Back
- [2.50] False Pleadings
- III. Motions
- Motions To Dismiss in State Court
- [2.51] 735 ILCS 5/2-615
- [2.52] 735 ILCS 5/2-619
- [2.53] Combined Motions Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1
- Motions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12
- [2.54] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) — Failure To State a Claim
- [2.55] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) — Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings
- [2.56] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) — Motions for More Definite Statement
- [2.57] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) — Motions To Strike
- Forum Non Conveniens
- [2.58] Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187
- [2.59] Forum Non Conveniens in Federal Court
- Removal and Remand
- [2.60] Removal to Federal Court
- [2.61] Remand to State Court
- Motions To Consolidate
- [2.62] Consolidation Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1006
- [2.63] Consolidation Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)
- [2.64] Motions To Intervene Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-408
- [2.65] Multidistrict Litigation
- [2.66] Motions for Summary Judgment Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1005
- [2.67] Timing
- [2.68] Partial Summary Judgment
- [2.69] Affidavits
- [2.70] Summary Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
- [2.71] Moving Party’s Initial Burden
- [2.72] Shifting the Burden to the Nonmoving Party
- [2.73] When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant
- [2.74] Timing
- [2.75] Partial Summary Judgment
- [2.76] Affidavits
- [2.77] Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1
- [2.78] Motions To Seal
- [2.79] Motions for Reconsideration
- Chapter 3 — Discovery Overview in Federal and State Courts in Illinois
- Chapter 4 — Written Discovery — Requests for Admission and Interrogatories
- I. Requests for Admission
- [4.1] Introductory Note: 2011 Amendments to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216
- [4.2] Use of Requests for Admission in Commercial Cases
- [4.3] Supreme Court Rule 216 Requests for Admission — Considered “Discovery” After Vision Point and 2011 Amendments
- [4.4] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 Requests for Admission — Generally Considered “Discovery”
- Implementing the Rule — Two Primary Purposes
- [4.5] Drafting Requests for Admission of Facts
- [4.6] Drafting Requests for Admission of Genuineness of Documents or Public Records
- [4.7] Number of Requests
- [4.8] Service of Requests
- [4.9] Filing with the Court
- [4.10] Time for Serving Requests for Admission
- [4.11] Time for Responding to Requests for Admission
- Form of Response to Requests for Admission
- [4.12] Responding with an Admission
- [4.13] Responding with a Denial
- [4.14] Responding with a Reason for Not Answering
- [4.15] Responding with an Objection
- Responses Must Meet the Other Technical Requirements of the Rules
- [4.16] Responses Must Be Signed by the Party
- [4.17] Responses Must Be Sworn Under Supreme Court Rule 216 but Not Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36
- [4.18] Requests and Responses No Longer Must Be Filed with the Court
- [4.19] Responses Must Be Served on the Party That Served the Requests
- [4.20] Effect of Admitting the Request for Admission
- [4.21] Effect of Denying the Request for Admission
- Effect of Failing To Timely or Appropriately Respond
- [4.22] Untimely Responses
- [4.23] Appellate Court’s Unyielding Pre-Vision Point Interpretation of “Good Cause” To Allow a Late-Filed Response
- [4.24] Supreme Court’s Redefinition in Vision Point of How Circuit Courts Should Determine Whether “Good Cause” Exists
- [4.25] Other Issues
- [4.26] Failure of a Party To Sign the Response
- [4.27] Failure of a Party To Swear to the Response
- [4.28] Failure of a Party To Properly Serve and File a Response
- [4.29] Failure of a Party To Properly Respond May Waive All Objections
- II. Interrogatories
- Use of Interrogatories in Commercial Cases
- [4.30] General Purpose of Interrogatories
- [4.31] Types of Interrogatories: Identification vs. Contention
- [4.32] Interrogatories and E-Discovery
- Mechanics of an Interrogatory
- [4.33] Directing Interrogatories to Parties
- [4.34] Timing: When To Propound Interrogatories
- [4.35] Service/Filing
- [4.36] Number of Interrogatories
- [4.37] Scope of Interrogatories
- Mechanics of Responding to Interrogatories
- [4.38] Answers Must Be in Good Faith Based on Reasonable Inquiry
- [4.39] Sworn Answers
- [4.40] Form
- [4.41] Timing of Answers
- [4.42] Service and Filing
- [4.43] Production of Documents
- Interrogatories That Seek To Identify Witnesses To Be Called at Trial
- [4.44] Supreme Court Rule 213(f) Lay and Expert Witness Interrogatories
- [4.45] Lay Witness
- [4.46] Independent Expert Witness
- [4.47] Controlled Expert Witness
- [4.48] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 Witness and Expert Witness Interrogatories
- [4.49] Duty To Supplement Answers to Interrogatories
- [4.50] Objections to Interrogatories
- [4.51] Failure To Answer Interrogatories or Improper Objections
- [4.52] Pre-Enforcement Steps: Supreme Court Rule 201(k) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) and 37(a)(1) — Meet and Confer Requirements
- [4.53] Party May Not Ignore Interrogatories
- [4.54] State Court Sanctions
- [4.55] Supreme Court Rule 137
- [4.56] Supreme Court Rule 219
- [4.57] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 Sanctions
- Chapter 5 — Document Production and Organization
- I. [5.1] Introduction
- II. Production of Documents
- Initial Document Requests and Production
- Initial Requests
- [5.2] Timing of the Initial Requests in Illinois, Central, and Southern District Courts
- [5.3] Timing of the Initial Request in Northern District Courts
- Content of the First Request
- [5.4] General Guide
- [5.5] Suggested Categories of Documents
- [5.6] Privileged Documents
- [5.7] Electronically Stored Information
- [5.8] Document Retention Orders
- [5.9] Discovery to Nonparties – Subpoenas and Respondents in Discovery
- Responding to Requests for Production of Documents
- [5.10] Objectives and General Rules
- [5.11] Initial Disclosures Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project
- [5.12] Grounds for Objection
- [5.13] Documents Requested Are Irrelevant
- [5.14] Documents Requested Are Not Within Possession or Control of the Party
- [5.15] Document Request Is Too Broad
- [5.16] Document Request Is Too Burdensome
- [5.17] Documents Requested Are Protected by Privilege
- [5.18] Attorney-Client Privilege
- [5.19] Work-Product Privilege
- [5.20] Deliberative Process Privilege
- [5.21] Other Privileges
- [5.22] Waiver of Privilege
- [5.23] Documents Are Requested Only for Purposes of Harassment
- [5.24] Judicial Resolution of Disputes
- [5.25] Working with the Client
- [5.26] Other General Guidelines
- Negotiating with the Other Party
- [5.27] In General
- [5.28] Stipulation as to Privilege
- [5.29] Documents in Particular Sequence
- [5.30] Redacted Documents
- [5.31] Lawyer Responsibility
- [5.32] Protective Orders
- [5.33] Dealing with Obstreperous Counsel
- [5.34] Production by Opposing Counsel
- [5.35] Originals vs. Copies of Documents
- [5.36] Missing Documents
- [5.37] Repeated Production
- [5.38] Copying All Documents Selected
- [5.39] Further Requests for Documents
- [5.40] Document Problems on the Eve of Trial
- [5.41] Supplementing Earlier Requests
- [5.42] Updating Requests
- [5.43] Discovery of Expert Studies
- [5.44] Alternative Copying Methods
- III. Organization of Documents
- [5.45] General Considerations
- Planning Document Organization
- [5.46] Integrating Organization and Production
- [5.47] Coping with the Client’s Documents
- [5.48] Objectives of the System
- Initial Handling of Documents
- [5.49] Eliminating Unneeded Documents
- [5.50] Avoiding Duplicate Files
- [5.51] Numbering, Indexing, and Abstracting
- Document Use After the Initial Organization
- [5.52] Limited Purpose Files
- [5.53] Organizing Documents for Trial
- Common Document Problems
- [5.54] Renumbering Documents
- [5.55] Duplicate Documents
- [5.56] Deposition Exhibits
- IV. [5.57] Conclusion
- Chapter 6 — E-Discovery
- I. [6.1] Introduction
- II. [6.2] E-Discovery in the Federal Courts
- [6.3] Northern District of Illinois Mandatory Initial Discovery Project
- [6.4] Overview of Applicable Federal Rules
- [6.5] Addressing E-Discovery Issues Early in the Case: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26(a), 26(d), and 26(f) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502
- [6.6] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(2): Time To Issue Scheduling Order
- [6.7] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(d) and 26(f) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502: Addressing at the Parties’ Planning Conference E-Discovery, Early Rule 34 Requests, Privilege, and Work-Product Issues
- Propounding and Responding to Interrogatories and Document Requests for Electronically Stored Information: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B), 33(d), and 34
- [6.8] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B): Electronically Stored Information Not Reasonably Accessible
- [6.9] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d): Option To Produce Electronically Stored Information in Lieu of Answering Interrogatories
- [6.10] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34: Requests for Production of Electronically Stored Information
- [6.11] Procedure for Asserting Claims of Privilege and Work-Product Protection After Information Has Already Been Produced: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B)
- [6.12] Sanctions Rule Unique to Discovery of Electronically Stored Information: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)
- [6.13] Conforming Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 Regarding Subpoenas
- [6.14] Federal Rules of Evidence 902(13) and 902(14): Self-Authenticating Electronic Documents
- III. [6.15] E-Discovery in the Illinois State Courts
- IV. [6.19] Identifying the Electronically Stored Information
- V. [6.20] Collection, Processing, and Production of Electronic Data
- Chapter 7 — Depositions
- I. [7.1] Purpose of Depositions
- II. Taking the Deposition
- Mechanics
- [7.2] Governing Rules
- [7.3] Timing
- [7.4] Practical Considerations
- [7.5] Priority
- [7.6] Whom To Depose
- [7.7] What Order
- [7.8] Notice
- [7.9] Form of Notice
- [7.10] Evidence vs. Discovery
- [7.11] Notice of Deposition of a Corporation or Partnership
- [7.12] Requesting Documents for Deposition
- [7.13] Location of Deposition
- [7.14] Limitations on Number and Length of Depositions
- [7.15] Transcript
- [7.16] Depositions on Written Questions
- Videotape Issues
- [7.17] Standards Governing Use
- [7.18] Advantages and Disadvantages
- [7.19] Practical Considerations
- Preparing for the Deposition
- [7.20] Preparing To Take the Deposition
- [7.21] Outline
- [7.22] Preparing Witnesses and Defending the Deposition
- Starting the Deposition
- [7.23] Seating
- [7.24] Stipulations
- [7.25] Standard Preliminary Questions
- [7.26] Visualizing the Transcript
- [7.27] Specific Questioning Techniques
- [7.28] Questioning on Documents
- [7.29] Questioning the Corporate Representative
- [7.30] Questions Based on E-Discovery
- [7.31] Questioning Experts
- III. [7.32] Handling Objections
- IV. [7.33] Witness’s Refusal To Answer Questions
- V. Recurring Issues/Problems
- VI. [7.40] Concluding the Deposition
- VII. [7.41] Reading and Signing the Transcript
- VIII. [7.42] After the Deposition
- IX. Enforcement Issues
- Chapter 8 — Trial Techniques in Business and Commercial Cases
- I. [8.1] Introduction
- II. [8.2] Significant Characteristics of Commercial Litigation Trials and the Widely Accepted Solutions
- [8.3] The Need To Motivate the Jury
- [8.4] How the Complexity and Amount of Evidence Act as a Barrier
- [8.5] Central Role of Documents
- [8.6] Multiple Parties
- [8.7] Presentation
- [8.8] Cross-Claims
- [8.9] Terminology
- [8.10] Technology
- [8.11] Presentation Hardware
- [8.12] Presentation Software
- [8.13] Creation of Demonstrative Exhibits
- [8.14] Organizational Technology
- [8.15] Reference Materials
- [8.16] Downside of the Use of Technology
- [8.17] Summary Evidence and Technology
- III. Pretrial Matters
- [8.18] Pretrial Conference
- [8.19] Law
- [8.20] Practical Tips
- [8.21] Issues of Persuasiveness
- [8.22] Role of Technology
- [8.23] Pretrial Order
- [8.24] Law
- Practical Tips
- [8.25] The Contents
- [8.26] Time and Cost
- [8.27] Waiver and Ambush
- [8.28] Strategy on Stipulations
- [8.29] Issues of Persuasiveness
- [8.30] Technology
- Trial Subpoena
- [8.31] Law
- [8.32] Practical Tips
- [8.33] Issues of Persuasiveness
- [8.34] Bifurcation
- [8.35] Law
- [8.36] Practical Tips
- [8.37] Motion in Limine
- [8.38] Law
- Practical Tips
- [8.39] The Contents
- [8.40] Almost No Limits to a Good-Faith Argument
- [8.41] Timing
- [8.42] Issues of Persuasiveness
- [8.43] Technology
- [8.44] Trial Notebook
- [8.45] Practical Tips
- [8.46] Issues of Persuasiveness
- [8.47] Technology
- [8.48] Shadow Jury
- [8.49] Practical Tips
- [8.50] Issues of Persuasiveness
- [8.51] The Theory of the Case and Theme
- [8.52] Practical Tips
- [8.53] Issues of Persuasiveness
- IV. Jury Selection
- V. [8.64] Opening Statement
- VI. Presentation of the Case-in-Chief
- [8.69] Case-in-Chief
- [8.70] Law
- Practical Tips
- [8.71] Determining What Evidence To Present
- [8.72] Objections
- [8.73] Offer of Proof
- [8.74] Direct Examination
- [8.75] Law
- [8.76] Practical Tips
- [8.77] Issues of Persuasiveness
- [8.78] Presentation of a Witness by Deposition
- [8.79] Law
- Practical Tips
- [8.80] Planning Ahead
- [8.81] Transcript vs. Video
- [8.82] What Exactly Will the Jury Hear?
- [8.83] Issues of Persuasiveness
- VII. [8.84] Cross-Examination
- VIII. Documentary Evidence
- IX. Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms
- X. Closing Argument
- XI. Appendix — Bibliography of Trial Resources
- Chapter 9 — Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions
- I. Introduction
- [9.1] Scope of Chapter
- Background
- [9.2] “Temporary Restraining Orders” and “Preliminary Injunctions” Defined
- Statutory Authority
- [9.3] Illinois
- [9.4] Federal
- Strategic Purpose of a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction
- [9.5] In General
- [9.6] Preservation of Status Quo
- [9.7] Prevention of Occurrence of Wrong or Further Injury
- [9.8] Prevention of Destruction or Dissipation of Property
- [9.9] Differences Between Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions
- [9.10] Notice
- [9.11] Duration of the Injunction
- [9.12] Scope of the Hearing
- [9.13] Bond or Other Security
- Jurisdiction and Venue
- [9.14] Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
- [9.15] Personal Jurisdiction
- [9.16] Venue
- II. Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions
- Obtaining a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction
- [9.17] General Showing Needed
- [9.18] Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Orders
- Notice
- [9.19] Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Orders
- Temporary Restraining Orders with Notice and Preliminary Injunctions
- [9.20] In General
- [9.21] Sufficiency
- [9.22] The Court Must Hold a Hearing Before Issuing a Preliminary Injunction if the Defendant Has Answered or Responded
- [9.23] Four Required Elements for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction
- Ascertainable Claim for Relief
- [9.24] In General
- [9.25] Protectable Interest in Restrictive Covenant Cases
- [9.26] Likelihood of Success on the Merits
- Irreparable Harm
- [9.27] In General
- [9.28] Irreparable Harm for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Orders
- [9.29] Inadequate Remedy at Law
- Additional Elements (or Factors)
- [9.30] Balancing of Hardships
- [9.31] Public Interest
- [9.32] Enforceability of Contractually Stipulated Injunctions
- Circumstance for Which Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions Are Unavailable
- [9.33] Courts Will Not Issue a Preliminary Injunction That Grants the Ultimate Relief
- [9.34] The Constitutionality of Statutes Will Not Generally Be Considered at the Preliminary Injunction Stage
- [9.35] Public Officials Will Not Generally Be Enjoined
- [9.36] Criminal Activity Will Not Generally Be Enjoined
- [9.37] A Court Will Not Enjoin Another Court
- [9.38] Courts Will Not Issue Injunctions if Preempted by Federal Statute
- [9.39] Courts Generally Will Not Issue an Equitable Attachment
- [9.40] Burden of Proof
- The Plaintiff’s Pleadings
- Verified Complaint
- [9.41] All Facts Necessary To Support a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction Must Be Clearly Pleaded
- [9.42] Ascertainable claim for relief
- [9.43] Likelihood of success on the merits
- [9.44] Irreparable harm
- [9.45] Inadequate remedy at law or in equity
- [9.46] Prayer for Relief Must Be Specific
- [9.47] Complaint Must Be Verified
- [9.48] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction and Summary of Plaintiff’s Filings
- [9.49] Pleading Requirements Are Relaxed if a Statute Expressly Authorizes Injunctive Relief
- The Defendant’s Pleadings
- [9.50] Defensive Pleadings
- [9.51] Affirmative Defenses
- [9.52] Summary of Defendant’s Filings
- [9.53] Third-Party Claims for Injunctive Relief
- The Hearing
- [9.54] Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Orders
- [9.55] Temporary Restraining Orders with Notice
- [9.56] Preliminary Injunctions
- [9.57] Contested Facts and Merits of Case Not Decided at Hearing for Temporary Restraining Order
- Duration of the Interlocutory Injunction
- [9.58] Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Orders
- [9.59] Temporary Restraining Orders with Notice
- [9.60] Preliminary Injunctions
- [9.61] The Bond Requirement
- [9.62] Form of the Order
- [9.63] Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Orders
- [9.64] Temporary Restraining Orders with Notice and Preliminary Injunctions
- [9.65] Persons Affected by the Order
- Motion To Dissolve a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction
- Timing of Motion To Dissolve
- [9.66] Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Orders
- [9.67] Temporary Restraining Orders with Notice or Preliminary Injunctions
- [9.68] Grounds for Motions To Dissolve
- Appeals of Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions
- [9.69] Stay Orders
- [9.70] Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions
- [9.71] Standard of Review on Appeal Is Abuse of Discretion
- [9.72] Damages for Wrongfully Entered Temporary Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions
- Federal Practice
- [9.73] Effect of Removal on Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65
- [9.74] Hearings for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Orders
- [9.75] Duration of Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Orders
- [9.76] Temporary Restraining Orders with Notice and Preliminary Injunctions
- [9.77] The United States Supreme Court’s Standard
- [9.78] The Seventh Circuit’s Two-Phase, Sliding Scale, Five-Part Test
- [9.79] Security Is Required
- [9.80] Anyone with Knowledge of the Order Is Bound by an Injunction
- Elements
- [9.81] The Legal Standards for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction Are Identical
- [9.82] The Two-Step Analysis
- [9.83] Irreparable Harm
- [9.84] Inadequate Remedy at Law
- [9.85] Likelihood of Success on the Merits
- [9.86] Balancing of Harms and the Sliding Scale Approach
- [9.87] Impact on Public Interest
- [9.88] Motion To Dissolve
- [9.89] Damages for Wrongfully Entered Injunctions
- [9.90] Appeals
- Temporary Restraining Order Summary — Checklists of Practical Considerations
- [9.91] Checklist for Plaintiffs When Preparing the Pleadings
- [9.92] Checklist for Plaintiffs at the Hearing and Beyond
- [9.93] Checklist for Defendants When Preparing the Pleadings
- [9.94] Checklist for Defendants at the Hearing and Beyond
- [9.95] Checklist of General Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Considerations for Both Parties
- III. [9.96] Any Person or Entity in Violation of an Injunction Order Is Subject to Punishment for Contempt of Court
- IV. Statutory Remedies
- [9.97] Compelling or Staying Arbitration
- [9.98] No Injunctions or Restraining Orders for Labor Disputes
- [9.99] Trademarks May Be Protected with Injunctions
- [9.100] Trade Secrets May Be Protected with Injunctions
- [9.101] Statutory Injunction Actions Brought by the State
- [9.102] Statutory Injunction Actions Brought by Individuals
- V. Appendix — Sample Forms
- [9.103] Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
- [9.104] Order for Temporary Restraining Order with Notice
- [9.105] Order for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice
- [9.106] Order for Preliminary Injunction
- [9.107] Injunction Bond
- [9.108] Motion To Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction
- Chapter 10 — Expert Witnesses
- I. [10.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. [10.2] Initial Case Evaluation
- III. Need for/Desirability of an Expert
- IV. [10.9] Rules and Statutes Governing Experts in Illinois Courts
- [10.10] State Caselaw
- Illinois Rules of Evidence
- [10.11] Illinois Rule of Evidence 702
- [10.12] Illinois Rule of Evidence 703
- [10.13] Illinois Rule of Evidence 704
- [10.14] Illinois Rule of Evidence 705
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules
- [10.15] Supreme Court Rule 201
- [10.16] Supreme Court Rule 213(f)
- [10.17] Supreme Court Rule 213(g)
- [10.18] Supreme Court Rule 213(i)
- [10.19] Supreme Court Rule 219(c)
- [10.20] Supreme Court Rule 222
- [10.21] Supreme Court Rule 218(c)
- [10.22] Proposed Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure
- [10.23] Federal Caselaw
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- [10.24] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
- [10.25] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)
- [10.26] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)
- [10.27] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16
- Federal Rules of Evidence
- [10.28] Federal Rule of Evidence 702
- [10.29] Federal Rule of Evidence 703
- [10.30] Federal Rule of Evidence 705
- V. Obtaining Experts
- [10.31] Identify Need
- Matters in Which Expert Testimony Is Admissible
- [10.32] State Court
- [10.33] Federal Court
- Matters in Which Expert Testimony Is Required
- [10.34] State Court
- [10.35] Federal Court
- Matters in Which Expert Testimony Is Not Required
- [10.36] State Court
- [10.37] Federal Court
- [10.38] Identify Relevant Expertise
- Sources of Experts
- [10.39] Academia
- [10.40] Third-Party Vendors
- [10.41] Other Attorneys
- [10.42] Clients
- [10.43] Industry Leaders
- [10.44] Bar Association/Expert Witness Banks
- [10.45] Retaining Experts
- VI. Care and Feeding of Expert Witnesses
- VII. Disclosure of Experts
- [10.50] Consultants vs. Experts
- When Expert Witness Disclosure Is Required
- [10.51] State Court
- [10.52] Federal Court
- Manner of Disclosure/Requirements
- [10.53] State Court
- [10.54] Federal Court
- Expert Reports: Federal Court
- [10.55] Preparation
- [10.56] Preproduction Reviews
- [10.57] Finalization of the Expert’s Report — Attorney’s Hands Off
- VIII. Expert Depositions
- [10.58] Timing
- [10.59] Notice
- [10.60] Documents To Obtain
- Preparation
- [10.61] Report
- [10.62] File Review
- [10.63] Full Compliance with Discovery
- [10.64] Consulting the Expert
- Deposition
- [10.65] Expert Witness Deposition Outline
- [10.66] Deposition Strategy: Challenge Credentials
- [10.67] Set Up for Frye/Daubert Challenge
- [10.68] Get All of the Opinions
- [10.69] Opinions Regarding Counsel’s Retained Expert
- IX. [10.70] Preparing and Presenting the Expert
- X. [10.71] Using the Expert for Motions
- XI. [10.72] Using the Expert for Trial Preparation
- XII. Experts at Trial
- Chapter 11 — Insurance Issues
- Chapter 12 — Preparing for the Appeal in the Trial Court: Preserving Issues for Review
- I. [12.1] Introduction
- II. [12.2] Preserving Error During Trial
- [12.3] Motions in Limine Are Valuable Tools but Require Follow-Up During Trial
- [12.4] Objections Must Be Made When Error Occurs
- [12.5] Objections Must Be Specific
- [12.6] Failure To Connect Evidence Later Requires Two Objections
- [12.7] Excluded Evidence Requires Offers of Proof
- [12.8] Objections Must Be Handled During Closing Argument To Preserve Error
- [12.9] Exhibits Need To Go in Record
- [12.10] Jury Instructions Must Be Objected to at Instruction Conference, and Correct Instructions Must Be Tendered
- [12.11] Need for Special Interrogatories When There Are Multiple Issues for Jury To Decide and Any One Could Be Dispositive — General Verdict Rule
- III. [12.12] Postjudgment Motions
- [12.13] Purpose of Postjudgment Motions
- [12.14] Types of Postjudgment Motions and Grounds for Relief
- [12.15] Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Reserved Motion for Directed Verdict
- [12.16] Illinois Procedure
- [12.17] Federal Procedure
- [12.18] Motion for New Trial
- [12.19] Verdict Is Against Manifest Weight of Evidence
- [12.20] Motion for New Trial Based on Procedural Errors
- [12.21] Defects in pleadings
- [12.22] Errors in rulings
- [12.23] Errors of law
- [12.24] Evidentiary Error
- [12.25] Attorney Misconduct
- [12.26] Juror Misconduct
- [12.27] Inadequate or Excessive Damages
- [12.28] Postjudgment Relief Regarding Amount of Damages
- [12.29] Remittitur
- [12.30] Additur
- Other Motions After Trial
- [12.31] Setoffs
- [12.32] Motion for Penalties
- [12.33] Costs and Attorneys’ Fees
- [12.34] Relief from Judgments
- [12.35] Postjudgment Motion Procedure — Timeliness
- [12.36] Extension of Time in Which To File Under Illinois Law
- [12.37] Successive Postjudgment Motions
- [12.38] Postjudgment Motions and Notice of Appeal
- [12.39] Tolling Time for Notice of Appeal
- [12.40] Piecemeal Judgments
- Contents of Postjudgment Motions
- [12.41] Form of Postjudgment Motion
- [12.42] Specificity
- [12.43] Waiver of Issues Not Raised in Postjudgment Motions Following Jury Trials
- [12.44] Amendments to Postjudgment Motions
- [12.45] Disposition of Postjudgment Motions
- IV. [12.46] Stays Following Judgments
- Posttrial Motions as Stays
- [12.47] Illinois Law
- [12.48] Federal Law
- [12.49] Importance of Stays When Judgment Is Not for Money
- [12.50] Failure To File an Appeal Bond
- Stays of Money Judgments
- Illinois Law
- [12.51] In general
- [12.52] Stay automatic if Supreme Court Rule 305(a) requirements are met
- [12.53] Waiver of Bond Requirement
- [12.54] Courts May Not Refuse To Set Bond
- [12.55] Failure To Obtain Stay
- [12.56] Stays of Nonmoney Judgments
- [12.57] Staying a Self-Executing Judgment
- Use of Insurance Policy as Bond
- [12.58] Illinois Law
- [12.59] Federal Law
- [12.60] Effect of Stay Following Amendment to Notice of Appeal
- V. [12.61] Conclusion
- Chapter 13 — Arbitration — The Practitioner's Viewpoint
- I. Introduction
- [13.1] What Is Commercial Arbitration?
- What Are the Types of Commercial Arbitration?
- [13.2] Binding vs. Nonbinding Arbitration
- [13.3] Domestic vs. International Arbitration
- [13.4] Administered vs. Private Arbitrations
- What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Arbitration?
- Advantages
- [13.5] Party Control
- [13.6] Confidentiality
- [13.7] Efficiency and Economy
- [13.8] Finality
- Disadvantages
- [13.9] No Precedent
- [13.10] Difficult To Vacate
- [13.11] Limited Discovery
- [13.12] Limited Information for Selection of Arbitrators
- [13.13] What Should the Arbitration Agreement Include?
- II. [13.14] Initiating or Avoiding Arbitration
- [13.15] What Kind of Agreements Are Arbitration Agreements?
- [13.16] How Do Disputes Over Whether Parties Must Arbitrate End Up in Court?
- [13.17] Who Decides Arbitrability — A Court or the Panel?
- [13.18] Are Federal Statutory Claims Subject to Arbitration?
- [13.19] Does Federal Law Preempt State Law on Arbitration?
- [13.20] How Is Arbitration Initiated?
- [13.21] How Are the Arbitrators Selected?
- [13.22] Are Dispositive Motions and Interim Remedies Allowed?
- [13.23] What Kind of Discovery Is Allowed?
- [13.24] What Happens at the Preliminary Hearing?
- III. [13.25] The Arbitration Hearing
- [13.26] Can Arbitrators Issue Subpoenas?
- [13.27] Is Testimony Taken Under Oath?
- [13.28] What Should an Opening Statement Contain?
- [13.29] Is There an Order for Witnesses?
- [13.30] How Are the Rules of Evidence Applied at the Hearing?
- [13.31] Are There Closing Arguments in Arbitration?
- What Controls Are There Over the Award?
- [13.32] Bare vs. Reasoned Award
- [13.33] Bracketed Award
- [13.34] Last Offer
- [13.35] What if a Party Fails To Appear?
- [13.36] What Are Some Practical Tips for Advocacy in Arbitration?
- [13.37] Preempt by Contract
- [13.38] Make Detailed Pleadings and Prehearing Briefs
- [13.39] Use Summaries
- [13.40] Put Witnesses Under Oath and on the Record
- [13.41] Use Affidavits Strategically
- [13.42] Overly Aggressive Is Seldom Persuasive
- [13.43] Experts on the Panel
- [13.44] Enjoy the Relaxation of Evidence Rules — Do Not Fight It
- [13.45] Streamline Direct Testimony
- [13.46] Encourage Participation by the Panel
- [13.47] What Controls Are There over the Award?
- [13.48] What Types of Awards Are There?
- [13.49] Can Interest, Attorneys’ Fees, Sanctions, Punitive Damages, and Specific Performance Be Awarded?
- IV. Post-Award
- [13.50] May Counsel Move for Reconsideration by the Arbitration Panel?
- [13.51] How Is an Award Enforced?
- [13.52] May an Award Be Modified by the Court?
- [13.53] May an Award Be Vacated by the Court?
- [13.54] What Are the Res Judicata and Collateral-Estoppel Effects of an Award?
- [13.55] May the Parties Agree To Expand or To Limit the Review of an Award by the Courts?
- [13.56] When May a Court Order on an Arbitration Award Be Appealed?
- V. Appendix — Sample Clauses
- Chapter 14 — Mediation
- I. [14.1] Introduction
- II. When To Mediate Business and Commercial Litigation Matters
- III. [14.9] Cook County Circuit Court Rules Part 20, Law Division Major Case Court-Annexed Civil Mediation, and Part 21, Chancery Division Court-Annexed Civil Mediation
- IV. Mechanics of Mediation
- V. [14.14] Mediation Agreement
- VI. Preparation for Mediation
- [14.15] Preparation of the Case
- [14.16] Theory of the Case
- [14.17] Identifying the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Case
- [14.18] Analysis of the Opponent’s Strengths and Weaknesses
- [14.19] Facts and Evidence
- [14.20] Law and Evidence
- [14.21] Outlining the Presentation of the Case
- [14.22] Strategies
- [14.23] Preparing the Client for Mediation
- [14.24] Client Representative
- [14.25] Procedure
- [14.26] Client Presentation and Tactics
- [14.27] Informing the Client About the Case
- [14.28] Client Expectations
- [14.29] Pre-Mediation Submission
- [14.30] Whom To Send the Submission To
- [14.31] What To Include in the Submission
- VII. Presenting at Mediation
- VIII. [14.38] Documenting the Settlement
- Jonathan B. Amarilio
Jonathan B. Amarilio
Jonathan B. Amarilio is a Partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, in Chicago, where he chairs the firm’s appellate practice group. Amarilio is Past President of the Illinois Appellate Lawyers Association, Treasurer for the Chicago Bar Association, and is a former board member of the Chicago Bar Foundation and the Illinois Bar Foundation, among other charitable and civic organizations. He earned his B.A. cum laude from American University and his J.D. from the University of Iowa 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 Editor (2020 – present) and Past President (2013 – 2014) of the Journal of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He received his B.A. from the University of Illinois and his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law.
- Gia F. Colunga
Gia F. Colunga
Gia F. Colunga is a Partner at Freeborn & Peters LLP, in Chicago, where her practice includes complex litigation and employment issues. Ms. Colunga has been chosen as a Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and Chicago Lawyer — 40 Under Forty Illinois Attorneys to Watch, Illinois Super Lawyers — Business Litigation. She has worked with the National Immigrant Justice Center as a pro bono attorney. Ms. Colunga received her B.A. from Tulane University and her J.D. cum laude from Loyola University Chicago School of Law, where she was Executive Student Articles Editor of the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal.
- J. Timothy Eaton
J. Timothy Eaton
J. Timothy Eaton is a Partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on commercial and appellate litigation. Eaton was named Person of the Year by Chicago Lawyer in 2020 and earned the Distinguished Award for Excellence from the Illinois Bar Foundation in 2022. Eaton received his B.A. from Miami University and his J.D. from Southern Illinois University School of Law.
- Kelley S. Gordon
Kelley S. Gordon
Kelley S. Gordon is an associate at Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., in Chicago, where she focuses on intellectual property, employment, and technology and cyber risk litigation. Ms. Gordon is Cochair (2018 – 2019) of the Chicago Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section on Intellectual Property. She is also a member of the CBA’s Judicial Evaluation Committee Investigation Division and the Chicago Women in Intellectual Property. Ms. Gordon received her B.A. from Indiana University, her M.A. from Richmond Univesity — The American International University, and her J.D. from The John Marshall Law School, where she also earned a Certificate of Concentration in Intellectual Property.
- Daniel T. Graham
Daniel T. Graham
Daniel T. Graham is a Partner at Clark Hill PLC, in Chicago, where his focus is on complex commercial litigation and construction. Mr. Graham has been selected as an Illinois Super Lawyer (2012 – present) and is a member of the Chicago and Illinois State Bar Associations. He was also appointed as a member of the Seventh Circuit’s E-discovery Pilot Program, which drafted the Principles and Standing Order. Mr. Graham received his B.A. maxima cum laude from Loras College and his J.D. with distinction from the University of Iowa College of Law.
- James H. Kallianis, Jr.
James H. Kallianis, Jr.
James H. Kallianis, Jr. is a Partner with Skarzynski Marick & Black LLP, in Chicago, where he deals with commercial litigation and insurance coverage. Mr. Kallianis has been listed by Chambers USA as one of America’s Leading Lawyers for Business (2010 – present) and has been included in The Best Lawyers in America (2019 – present). He is also a Fellow of the American College of Coverage Counsel. Mr. Kallianis received his B.A. from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana and his J.D. from DePaul University College of Law, where he served as Associate Editor of the DePaul Business Law Journal.
- Joseph L. Kish
Joseph L. Kish
Joseph L. Kish is a Shareholder at Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., in Chicago, where he devotes a significant portion of his practice to the defense of business litigation, complex commercial litigation and technology, and intellectual property law matters. Mr. Kish has extensive trial and appellate experience in federal and state courts, as well as alternative dispute resolution experience involving mediation and arbitration. Mr. Kish has been named an Illinois Super Lawyer in litigation. He is a faculty member of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy and is licensed in Illinois and California. He received his B.G.S. from the University of Michigan, where he was an Associate Editor of the Michigan Journal of Political Science, and his J.D. from DePaul University College of Law, where he was a Member of the DePaul Law Review and President of the Moot Court Society.
- Monika N. Kothari
Monika N. Kothari
Monika N. Kothari is an associate at Jenner & Block LLP, in Chicago, where she focuses her practice on litigation. Ms. Kothari received her B.S. from Michigan State University and her J.D. from Yale Law School.
- Chad Layton
Chad Layton
Chad Layton is a Partner at Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., in Chicago, and works in complex commercial litigation, employment litigation and counseling, and products liability/general liability matters. Mr. Layton is President of the Midwest Chapter of Claims and Litigation Management Alliance and Cochair of the Commercial Litigation, Technology and Cyber Risk Practice Group. He earned his B.A. from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign and his J.D. cum laude from The John Marshall Law School, where he served as an editor of the Law Review and his published law review article was recognized by the National Law Journal.
- Brian W. Lewis
Brian W. Lewis
Brian W. Lewis is a Partner in the Chicago office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, where he concentrates his practice on arbitration and complex commercial disputes. Mr. Lewis is a Member of the Illinois State Bar Association and the American Bar Association Antitrust Section and Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section. He is also an adjunct professor of trial advocacy at Northwestern University School of Law. Mr. Lewis received his B.A. cum laude from the University of Illinois and his J.D. cum laude from Loyola University Chicago School of Law.
- Lindsey A. Lusk
Lindsey A. Lusk
Lindsey A. Lusk is an associate at Jenner & Block LLP, in Chicago, concentrating her practice on litigation. Ms. Lusk is a member of the University of Illinois College of Law Alumni Board. She received her B.A. with distinction from the University of Oklahoma, her B.F.A. magna cum laude from the University of Oklahoma, and her J.D. magna cum laude from the University of Illinois College of Law, where she was Editor-in-Chief of the University of Illinois Law Review and received the Rickerts Award for Excellence in Legal Writing, Advocacy, and Service.
- Jeffrey J. Mayer
Jeffrey J. Mayer
Jeffrey J. Mayer is a Partner with Akerman LLP, in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on commercial litigation. Mr. Mayer is an adjunct professor at University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, Chair of the Joe Niekro Foundation, and Board Member of Duke Chicago. Mr. Mayer received his A.B. from Duke University, his J.D. from Washington University School of Law, and his LL.M from the University of Michigan.
- Mark P. Miller
Mark P. Miller
Mark P. Miller is a Partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in Chicago, where he is a member of the firm’s litigation department and concentrates his practice on commercial litigation matters. Mr. Miller is a Member of the American Bar Association and the Network of Trial Law Firms. He is also listed in the Legal 500 in the area of products liability and mass tort defense. Mr. Miller received his B.S. cum laude from the University of Illinois, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and his J.D. with distinctioon from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he served as the Associate Editor of the University of Illinois Law Review.
- Jeanah Park
Jeanah Park
Jeanah Park is a Shareholder at Vedder Price P.C., in Chicago, where she counsels and represents clients in business and employment disputes, including commercial contract, wrongful discharge, securities, intellectual property, and business tort disputes. Ms. Park was selected to Crain’s Chicago Business’s 2018 Notable Women Lawyers list. She received her B.A. from Northwestern University and her J.D. cum laude from the University of Illinois College of Law.
- Brian A. Rosenblatt
Brian A. Rosenblatt
Brian A. Rosenblatt is a Partner as Downey & Lenkov LLC in Chicago, where he concentrates his practice in entertainment law, media and intellectual property law, general liability and workers’ compensation litigation, and corporate law. He is General Counsel for the Sports & Entertainment Risk Management Alliance, has been a member of The Recording Academy since 1995, and is a Governing Committee member of the American Bar Association’s forum on Entertainment & Sports Industries and Editor-in-Chief of its quarterly law journal. Mr. Rosenblatt received his B.A. from Washington University and his J.D. from the Chicago-Kent College of Law.
- William J. Ryan
William J. Ryan
No bio available.
- Gregory J. Scandaglia
Gregory J. Scandaglia
Gregory J. Scandaglia is a Cofounding Partner at Scandaglia Ryan, in Chicago, where he has an active white-collar criminal defense and antitrust consulting and complex commercial litigation practice. Mr. Scandaglia is admitted to practice at the Federal Bar for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Michigan as well as the Federal Trial Bar for the Northern District of Illinois and Illinois State Bar. He has been selected as an Illinois Super Lawyer and Leading Lawyer in the area of business litigation. Mr. Scandaglia received his B.A. from State University of New York at Stony Brook and his J.D. from American University Washington College of Law.
- Chad A. Schiefelbein
Chad A. Schiefelbein
Chad A. Schiefelbein is a Shareholder at Vedder Price P.C., in Chicago, where he practices in business litigation. Mr. Schiefelbein was National First Place in the AIPLA Memorial Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition and has been awarded the Distinguished Student Award from the Valparaiso University Alumni Association. He received his B.S. from Valparaiso University School of Business Administration and his J.D magna cum laude from Valparaiso University School of Law.
- Jeffrey M. Sniadanko
Jeffrey M. Sniadanko
Jeffrey M. Sniadanko is an associate at Clark Hill PLC in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on litigation. He is a member of the Chicago and Illinois State Bar Associations. He received the CALI Excellence for the Future Award for Civil Procedure (Fall 2016) and Civil Litigation (Spring 2018). Mr. Sniadanko received his B.A. from Loyola University Chicago and his J.D. from the Chicago-Kent College of Law.
- Justin C. Steffen
Justin C. Steffen
Justin C. Steffen is a Partner with Ice Miller LLP, in Chicago, and a member of the firm’s Date Security and Privacy, Litigation and Financial Services Practice Groups. Mr. Steffen has been named a National Law Journal FinTech Trailblazer and a BAI Emerging Leader. He is also Chair of the Chicago Bar Association’s Financial and Emerging Technologies Committee. Mr. Steffen earned his B.A. summa cum laude from the University of Illinois and his J.D. magna cum laude from Washington University School of Law, where he was a member of the Order of the Coif.
- William M. Strom
William M. Strom
William M. Strom is an associate with Jenner & Block LLP, in Chicago, where he focuses on professional responsibility and complex commercial litigation. Mr. Strom is on the Board of Governors for the Chicago Council of Lawyers and is on the Young Professionals Board at LAF. He received his B.A. from Yale College, where he earned the Jonathan Edwards College New Prize, and his J.D. cum laude from Northwestern University School of Law, where he was a member of the Order of the Coif.
- Patrick F. Sullivan
Patrick F. Sullivan
Patrick F. Sullivan is a Senior Associate at Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., in Chicago, where he concentrates his practice on commercial litigation, professional liability, and products liability defense. Mr. Sullivan received his B.S. from Bradley University and his J.D. from The UIC John Marshall Law School.
- Andrew W. Vail
Andrew W. Vail
Andrew W. Vail is a Partner at Jenner & Block LLP, in Chicago, where he concentrates his practice on complex commercial litigation. Mr. Vail is a member of the American College of Trial Lawyers and Chair of the Chicago Bar Association’s Strategic Planning Committee. He is also a Board Member of the Legal Aid Society and the Mikva Challenge. Mr. Vail earned his B.A. from the University of North Carolina and his J.D. cum laude from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he was on the Moot Court Bench.
- Charlotte L. Wager
Charlotte L. Wager
Charlotte L. Wager is a Partner in the Litigation Department at Jenner & Block LLP, in Chicago, where she serves as the firm’s Chief Talent Officer and oversees all aspects of the firm’s hiring and attorney development. At Jenner & Block, she is Cochair of the Hiring Executive Committee, Chair of the Associate Development and Evaluation Committee, an active member of the Diversity and Inclusion Committee, and a member of the firm’s Women’s Forum and Pro Bono Committees. Ms. Wager has been a featured speaker on hiring and development at programs sponsored by the American Bar Association, the Practicing Law Institute, the Illinois State Bar Association, and numerous law schools. She is a Past President and longstanding member of the National Association for Legal Career Professionals (NALP) and a former member of the ABA Accreditation Committee. She received her LL.B. from Queen Mary College, University of London; was a visiting scholar at the Marshall Wythe School of Law, College of William & Mary; and received her J.D. summa cum laudefrom the University of Illinois College of Law.
- Sara S. Zorich
Sara S. Zorich
Sara S. Zorich is a Partner at SmithAmundsen LLC, in St. Charles, where she focuses her practice on labor and employment and immigration issues. Ms. Zorich was selected to the Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Stars (2010 – 2016) and is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. She received her B.A. from Michigan State University and her J.D from IIT/Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Business and Commercial Litigation (ARCHIVED 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