Video Center

0:04
commercial litigation and my experience

0:06
really encompasses a broad range of

0:08
cases in a general sense commercial

0:11
litigation really refers to any type of

0:14
business related dispute and that case

0:16
might be brought in federal court it

0:18
might be brought in state court and

0:20
we’ve handled commercial cases across

0:22
the country in a wide variety of

0:24
business disputes sometimes representing

0:26
the companies that are being sued

0:28
sometimes it’s one company suing another

0:30
company sometimes it’s a group of

0:33
individuals maybe investors suing a

0:36
company or an individual and so we’ve

0:38
had quite a bit of success trying

0:40
commercial cases here in Federal Court

0:42
and state court and also in other

0:44
locations throughout the country and I

0:46
think again really having a wide variety

0:49
of trial experience is what really kind

0:51
of sets us apart when you get in

0:52
commercial litigation because ultimately

0:54
it doesn’t matter what type of case it

0:56
is you’re bringing a skill set to that

0:58
case a theme for the case a theory

1:02
executing by way of deposition and and

1:05
then ultimately getting the case

1:06
postured for trial or trying the case so

1:08
I think having all the trial experience

1:10
really serves as a benefit when we’re in

1:13
the uh commercial litigation Arena

0:04
if your career is dedicated to just one

0:07
type of case you you only represent the

0:09
defendants or you only represent the

0:11
plaintiffs I think there’s a tendency to

0:13
see things and shade things through a

0:15
certain lens because that’s your whole

0:17
body of experience so once you sort of

0:20
switch sides and start handling cases

0:21
for the other side of the case it really

0:24
opens your eyes to the challenges and

0:27
the opportunities and I think being on

0:30
the defense side you certainly have an

0:32
appreciation when you get to the

0:34
plaintiff side that every case does have

0:36
a monetary value ultimately and you

0:39
understand the pressures that the

0:41
defense side sees in a case and you also

0:44
understand the often unwillingness of

0:47
the defense clients to ultimately take

0:49
the case to trial so I think that can

0:51
help you be a little more aggressive in

0:53
representing the plaintiffs because

0:55
ultimately we want to get the cases to

0:57
trial because that’s really where our

0:59
skill set is most useful and where we’ve

1:01
been most successful

0:04
work has been pretty wide and varied

0:07
I’ve actually argued appeals in the

0:10
state of California in the Supreme Court

0:12
of Idaho in other Federal circuits but

0:15
the emphasis because we’re at Chicago

0:17
based is the seventh Circuit Court of

0:19
Appeals where I’ve argued many Federal

0:22
Criminal and Civil Appeals before the

0:24
seventh circuit and then also an

0:25
Illinois state court before the Illinois

0:28
Pelt courts in various locations in the

0:30
state arguing criminal cases on appeal

0:33
and also civil cases and that’s a much

0:36
different process and experience because

0:38
obviously you’re not before a trial

0:40
court judge you’re before a tribunal of

0:43
three judges and the fun part and the I

0:46
guess the exciting and scary part of

0:48
doing a pill work is that you know the

0:50
judges get to ask you whatever they want

0:52
whenever they want and interrupt you in

0:54
the middle of your argument so I think

0:56
it’s kind of a fun challenge as an

0:58
attorney to be able to think on your

1:00
feet and be the type of individual that

1:02
can just get peppered with questions and

1:04
be ready for you know sort of all comers

0:04
commercial litigation and my experience

0:06
really encompasses a broad range of

0:08
cases in a general sense commercial

0:11
litigation really refers to any type of

0:14
business related dispute and that case

0:16
might be brought in federal court it

0:18
might be brought in state court and

0:20
we’ve handled commercial cases across

0:22
the country in a wide variety of

0:24
business disputes sometimes representing

0:26
the companies that are being sued

0:28
sometimes it’s one company suing another

0:30
company sometimes it’s a group of

0:33
individuals maybe investors suing a

0:36
company or an individual and so we’ve

0:38
had quite a bit of success trying

0:40
commercial cases here in Federal Court

0:42
and state court and also in other

0:44
locations throughout the country and I

0:46
think again really having a wide variety

0:49
of trial experience is what really kind

0:51
of sets us apart when you get in

0:52
commercial litigation because ultimately

0:54
it doesn’t matter what type of case it

0:56
is you’re bringing a skill set to that

0:58
case a theme for the case a theory

1:02
executing by way of deposition and and

1:05
then ultimately getting the case

1:06
postured for trial or trying the case so

1:08
I think having all the trial experience

1:10
really serves as a benefit when we’re in

1:13
the uh commercial litigation Arena

0:05
employment discrimination case is a

0:07
little different than a lot of attorneys

0:09
for about 10 or 15 years I worked

0:12
exclusively on the defense side of

0:14
employment discrimination cases meaning

0:15
that I would be representing the company

0:18
in litigation at at trial defending them

0:21
against accusations that they had

0:23
discriminated against an individual

0:25
based upon a wide variety of reasons

0:27
could be age race gender sexual

0:29
harassment but about 10 or 12 years ago

0:31
I sort of flip sides and now on a

0:34
regular basis I represent the

0:35
individuals who are suing companies for

0:39
discrimination again in a wide variety

0:41
of protected classes however I do from

0:44
time to time represent companies who are

0:46
being sued but have really a good basis

0:50
of experience a decade or so on each

0:51
side of the of the V so to speak so I

0:54
have a really good understanding of what

0:56
the defense side is thinking what

0:58
perspective their client may have and

1:00
then also clearly uh the perspective of

1:02
the planet the individual who’s bringing

1:04
the case and what will be the obstacles

1:06
and difficulties in winning that case at

1:08
trial

0:05
a lawyer for a federal criminal case I

0:07
think there’s a multitude of factors but

0:09
several basic ones first of all does the

0:12
lawyer have a deep experiencing handling

0:14
Federal cases because there is a lot of

0:17
difference in terms of procedure law and

0:20
nuance and sort of courtroom decorum in

0:23
federal court versus state court so I’d

0:25
want an attorney who has a wide body of

0:27
federal experience number two and most

0:30
practically is an attorney who’s had

0:32
success actually winning Federal jury

0:35
trials because there’s only two options

0:37
in a federal case it’s either going to

0:38
plead or it’s going to go to trial so

0:40
I’d certainly want to know has this

0:43
attorney has they have they stepped

0:44
before a jury have they experienced the

0:46
success of getting not guilty jury

0:48
verdicts in federal court of course if

0:50
I’m a consumer or Advocate or anybody

0:53
I’d probably want to hire the person

0:55
that wins more often versus the person

0:58
who’s never won a case in federal court

0:59
so those would be key factors and the

1:02
last part would be just a comfort level

1:04
with the attorney again of the fact that

1:06
they feel that they can have a

1:08
relationship with them that they have a

1:10
hundred percent confidence that that

1:12
person is going to do everything they

1:14
can to either win the case at trial or

1:16
to get the most favorable plea agreement

1:18
that they can just a level of trust and

1:20
confidence and respect between the

1:23
lawyer and the client

0:04
my experience in handling cases on

0:07
behalf of defendants and federal

0:08
criminal cases is extremely wide a lot

0:11
of the cases surprisingly would seem

0:13
like they would be typically state court

0:14
cases so a wide variety of drug cases

0:18
gun cases cases such as carjackings

0:22
kidnappings bank robberies surprising to

0:25
some people a lot of those what are

0:27
called sort of Street crimes are federal

0:29
cases but also some of the larger cases

0:32
that we handled are things like murder

0:34
for hire in federal court Health Care

0:37
fraud on a regular basis bank fraud

0:41
conspiracy wire fraud mail fraud because

0:45
of our length of time I’ve been

0:46
practicing probably handled every type

0:48
of federal criminal offense that you can

0:50
imagine but in terms of the white collar

0:52
cases which is one of our Hallmarks they

0:55
typically tend to be in their domain of

0:57
healthcare fraud bank fraud mortgage

1:00
fraud some sort of fraud scheme that

1:03
allows the feds to charge the k

1:04
typically because there’s a wire fraud

1:07
element to whatever the fraudulent

1:09
scheme is that you can imagine that

1:11
could be charged in federal court

0:04
we’ve had eight separate cases where the

0:08
jury has returned uh not a single count

0:11
of guilty against our clients meaning

0:14
that in seven out of eight of those

0:16
cases the client is walking totally free

0:18
in the eighth case there was one count

0:21
against our client but that was a

0:23
mistried case a mistried count so eight

0:27
occasions where essentially the jury

0:29
didn’t find our client guilty of a

0:31
single count which is highly unusual in

0:33
federal court you have a lot of lawyers

0:34
who unfortunately have not experienced

0:37
the thrill of a not guilty in federal

0:39
court in a criminal trial some have

0:41
experienced once or twice and we’ve been

0:43
on that board about eight times which is

0:45
highly unusual and so that’s kind of one

0:48
of our calling cards our ability to be

0:50
successful against the feds in criminal

0:52
trials in Chicago and elsewhere

0:04
probably like to talk about what one of

0:06
our most recent wins in January of 2023

0:10
we represent an individual who was a

0:13
high-ranking employee of a medical

0:15
device company and the case went to

0:17
trial here in federal court in Chicago

0:18
for a couple of weeks and we had been

0:21
working with a client since 2019 so it

0:24
was a culmination of four years of

0:26
effort and you know really a

0:29
firm belief from the get-go that this

0:32
client never should have been charged

0:34
that Not only was she not guilty but she

0:37
was innocent and after a two-week trial

0:39
after hearing from a dozen Witnesses or

0:41
so the jury returned to verdictive not

0:43
guilty on all charges against her and

0:46
it’s memorable in the sense that you

0:48
know going out with the client

0:49
afterwards to celebrate with her and her

0:51
mother to see the smile on her face it

0:54
really almost felt like I was with a

0:56
different person so I’ll always remember

0:58
that smile and and the real person

1:01
coming out after it’s sort of this

1:03
burden had been lifted from her out

1:05
there this four-year battle

0:04
the federal sentencing guidelines are at

0:07
the Forefront of any criminal case from

0:09
your initial evaluation of the case

0:12
to assessing your odds at trial and

0:15
making a risk benefit with your client

0:16
and then of course if your client is

0:18
found guilty at the sentencing phase but

0:21
what they really are are series of

0:23
guidelines or rules that the courts

0:25
apply in federal cases which primarily

0:28
takes into two factors the offense level

0:31
that’s assigned to the crime meaning a

0:33
higher number would correspond with what

0:36
people believe to be the sentencing

0:38
commission believes to be a a more

0:39
serious offense and the second

0:41
significant factor would be the

0:43
defendant’s criminal history on how many

0:45
other occasions have they been convicted

0:47
of crimes but the federal sentencing

0:49
guidings have also changed in a real

0:51
significant way over the last 10 years

0:53
and now there’s something called the

0:55
3553 factors that the courts recognize

0:59
where we as attorneys can really bring

1:01
to the attention almost anything that

1:03
would be considered mitigating evidence

1:05
that should be considered in the court

1:07
sort of taking a holistic view of the

1:10
defendant but the reason why why people

1:12
place so much emphasis on the federal

1:14
sentencing guidelines are the often very

1:16
Draconian penalties associated with

1:19
federal crimes you might have a client

1:21
who’s facing a mandatory minimum

1:23
sentence of 10 years or 15 years or 20

1:27
years those are stiff sentences and

1:29
sometimes it might be up to life so you

1:32
have to be extremely confident in your

1:34
attorney that they have the ability to

1:36
take your case to trial because

1:38
sometimes you really don’t have any

1:40
choice a client’s often not going to

1:42
take sitting down without a trial 10 or

1:45
15 or 20 years or up to a life sentence

1:47
without going to trial so the selection

1:51
of a trial attorney who can take your

1:53
case to try out the federal level and

1:54
win is of Paramount importance

0:04
primarily started my career in terms of

0:07
Federal Criminal experience about 20 25

0:09
years ago doing exclusively Federal

0:11
cases but over the years getting a track

0:14
Road records of success in Federal

0:17
Criminal trials has led me to handle on

0:20
a very regular basis now a state court

0:22
criminal felony cases here in Illinois

0:24
and in other jurisdictions and by way of

0:27
example just last week we represented an

0:29
individual in a state felony case in

0:33
Illinois where the individual was a

0:35
charge with attempted murder and were

0:37
able to obtain a not guilty verdict for

0:39
that individual so on quite a regular

0:41
basis we represent individuals in state

0:43
felony cases here in Illinois and take

0:46
those cases of trial in cases ranging

0:48
anywhere from gun crimes to murder or

0:51
even some white collar offense cases

0:53
even though those are less frequently

0:55
charged in State Court

0:04
whistleblower lawsuit is really you

0:07
probably want to Define them in two ways

0:08
there are state and federal statutes

0:11
that allow someone to come forward as a

0:13
whistleblower and bring forth

0:15
information to indicate that a company

0:19
or individual is either bilking the

0:22
government out of money or defrauding

0:24
the public so those are whistleblower

0:27
statutes devised to incentivize

0:29
individuals to come forth information

0:32
that essentially furthers either the

0:35
government good or the public good and

0:37
allows the Whistler to share in the

0:39
recovery meaning for instance if there

0:42
to be a million dollar recovery The

0:44
Whistleblower might get up to 30 percent

0:46
of that recovery the other type of

0:48
whistleblower case which is also common

0:50
and more common at the state court level

0:52
is where an individual comes forward and

0:55
Blows the Whistle internally at a

0:57
company about illegal activity and then

1:00
in turn they get fired and so that often

1:03
results in US representing them at file

1:05
in retaliation cases based upon their

1:07
whistleblowing

0:05
cases I can give you a good recent

0:07
example we represent an individual who

0:10
had complained internally to the Chicago

0:12
Transit Authority about what she

0:15
believed to be illegal activities and

0:17
then was fired shortly thereafter and

0:20
after a multi-year battle we finally

0:23
were able to get the case to trial here

0:25
in a Circuit Court of Cook County and

0:27
after trying that case before a jury for

0:29
a week week and a half the jury awarded

0:31
a substantial money award to our client

0:34
the plaintiff but to show the

0:36
difficulties of being invisible or we

0:38
then had to fight at the Appellate level

0:40
for several years before the Illinois

0:42
Pell Court in Illinois Supreme Court

0:44
just to get our whistlebar into position

0:46
to finally get paid so that really was

0:48
an example of a very rewarding but

0:51
taxing case which kind of shows the

0:54
dedication you need to the client to The

0:56
Whistleblower over a long period of time