Deals // Verdicts // Settlements

Big Deals

Winston & Strawn represented Discover Financial Services in its $165 million acquisition of Diners Club International, a deal that will result in worldwide acceptance of Discover Network cards. Corporate partner Terrence R. Brady led the team, which included Chicago partners Christine A. Edwards, Roger S. Lucas, Cardelle B. Spangler, and Andrew D. Wang.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom represented Danka Business Systems PLC, a distributor of office equipment and supplies, in its $240 million sale and liquidation of a subsidiary that provides computer imaging and networking technology. The Chicago attorneys involved were partners Gary P. Cullen, Shilpi Gupta, Christina M. Tchen, and Louis S. Freeman.

Jenner & Block represented an inventor who won a $23.4 million arbitration award against MagneTek Inc., for infringement of one of his patents for electronic lighting ballasts that light fluorescent lamps. Partners Raymond N. Nimrod and Lawrence S. Schaner served as lead counsel for the inventor.

Thomas Vega-Byrnes, of the Law Offices of Thomas Vega-Byrnes has advised ShoreCap International on three recent transactions: an investment in Compagnie Generale de Banque, a micro-finance and small business lending bank in Rwanda; the sale of shares in InecoBank, a small business lending bank in Armenia; and the development of a start-up small business lending bank in Belarus, to be named the Belarus Bank for Small Business.

Settlements

All 22 plaintiffs in the October 2003 fire at the Cook County Administration Building in which six people died and 16 were injured, reached a settlement for $100 million.

The fire, which started in a closet on the 12th floor, caused the deaths of three lawyers — Janet B. Grant, Sara W. Chapman, and John Slater III — and a paralegal — Maureen E. McDonald — in the Cook County Public Guardian’s office, and two other people. The cause of the fire remains undetermined.

Plaintiff’s attorneys alleged that a number of the victims were trapped in a stairwell by locked doors and that the city’s emergency communications office failed to inform firefighters that people were trapped. In addition, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the building’s evacuation plans were inadequate, and the building’s smoke tower failed to work properly.

The plaintiffs were represented by Robert A. Clifford and Kevin P. Durkin of Clifford Law Offices; Daniel M. Kotin of Corboy & Demetrio; Albert E. Durkin of Miroballi Durkin & Rudin; James D. Montgomery, Jr. of James D. Montgomery & Associates; Joseph A. Terc; Mark Parts of Parts & Spencer; and Brian LaCien of Power Rogers & Smith. The City of Chicago was represented by William T. Cahill of Perkins & Coie; the building management company by Dan L. Boho of Hinshaw & Culbertson; the building security companies by Edward J. Murphy of Williams Montgomery & John; and Cook County by Peter G. Skiko of Swanson, Martin & Bell.

— Robert Yates

Financial Services: The SEC’s ‘Top 10′ compliance issues

By James J. Eccleston
Shaheen, Novoselsky, Staat, Filipowski & Eccleston

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed its current examination priorities for investment advisers. Speaking before the 10th Annual IA Compliance Best Practices Summit, Lori Richards, Director of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, detailed the ”Top 10” issues. Let’s explore each of these.

Preliminarily, a shortage of SEC staff examiners to oversee nearly 11,000 investment advisers has forced the commission to adopt a risk-based approach to examining investment advisory firms. Nonetheless, the SEC is quick to point out that it continues to conduct random examinations. The SEC recently has emphasized that it ”targets” newly registered investment advisers, and is interested in determining the adviser’s ”risk-assessment process.”

1. Controls over valuation. Valuing securities is a Top 10 issue because clients need to know the value of their investments. Advisers should not overstate the value in order to overcharge their investment advisory fees. The SEC particularly wants to ensure that an advisory firm has ”controls and is implementing those controls when pricing structured products, illiquid securities or other difficult-to-price securities.”

2. Controls over non-public information/personal trading/code of ethics. Richards revealed that the instances of suspicious trading have increased. She states that, generally, examiners will focus on ”whether a firm has identified the source and type of non-public information that they and employees may be privy to, whether the firm has crafted and implemented adequate procedures to maintain the confidentiality of that information, and is implementing those procedures.” The SEC also will inquire as to ”whether the firm has guidelines with respect to when and to whom it will provide information, for example, information about its portfolio or its trading.”

3. Dealing with senior investors. Protecting seniors is a high priority at the SEC. According to Richards, the SEC is focusing on: ”marketing and advertising to seniors; account opening; product and account review; ongoing review of the relationship and appropriateness of products; discerning and meeting the changing needs of customers as they age; surveillance and compliance reviews; and training for firm employees.”

4. Compliance and supervision. Advisers must tailor their programs to identify and effectively mitigate their particular compliance risks and conflicts of interests. According to Richards, the conflicts that the SEC is seeing ”include new revenue-sharing payment streams from advisers to broker-dealers for obtaining space on the broker-dealers’ ‘recommended adviser’ lists, and other undisclosed compensation and gifts for business (e.g., to solicitors, fund consultants, and municipal consultants).” The SEC also is examining for adequate supervision of ”dispersed offices and independent advisory contractors.”

5. Portfolio management. The SEC continues to review whether investment recommendations are consistent with the adviser’s disclosures and the client’s investment objectives and restrictions. More recently, the SEC has focused on ”client investments in structured products and other complex derivative instruments.”

6. Brokerage arrangements and best execution. Investment advisers owe fiduciary obligations to their clients. Fiduciary obligations include seeking the best execution for trades and ”periodically and systematically” evaluating the costs and benefits of their brokerage arrangements. Along those lines, the SEC is examining for ”any inappropriate and/or undisclosed use of soft dollars for the benefit of the adviser, and use of any affiliated or preferenced broker-dealers for excessive commission payments, kickbacks to the adviser, or other undisclosed arrangements.”

7. Allocation of trades. Advisers must disclose their policies and procedures, and test them for fairness in allocating IPOs, block trades, and investment opportunities among clients and proprietary accounts.

8. Performance advertising, marketing, and fund distribution activities. Advisers must ensure that their claims about past performance, their advertisements, and marketing materials contain accurate information.

9. Safety of clients’ and funds’ assets. The SEC is interested in whether funds and investIllegal ‘X-value’ for character STYLs voided here ment advisers have ”effective policies and procedures for safeguarding their clients’ assets from theft, loss and misuse.” Notably, Richards said that examiners ”assess whether there is a process for regularly reconciling client and fund balances of securities owned with those shown by custodians and ensuring that the books reconcile.”

10. Information processing and protection. This large examination area covers required books and records, disclosures, and filings. It includes effective policies and procedures for capturing, compiling, and maintaining e-mail and instant messages. The SEC ”will be looking for controls that protect this information from hackers or other unauthorized persons, and from being destroyed in a disaster as part of the firm’s business continuity plan.”

As one can see, investment advisers face a great deal of scrutiny in complying with SEC requirements.

Ethics: Misuse of notary seal can result in discipline

By Thomas P. McGarry and Thomas P. Sukowicz
Hinshaw & Culbertson

Attorneys have been disciplined for conduct that arises out of their representation of clients, as well as for conduct that does not. Lawyers have been disciplined for conduct involving the misuse of notary seals in both contexts. In fact, one attorney was disciplined twice for such conduct, once when acting as a lawyer and the other when he was not.

In In re Maples, 99 CH 80, M.R. 18253 (2002), an attorney represented sellers of real property held in trust by LaSalle Bank National Association.

In relation to the sale, the attorney certified the signatures of his clients by using the notary seal and forging the name of the notary on a Direction to Convey and/or a Power of Attorney.

He also falsely certified an inaccurate HUD Settlement Statement, made false statements in motions, and in an affidavit, forged his client’s name to a false affidavit and neglected two personal injury cases.

For this conduct, he was suspended for two years, with the suspension stayed after the first year by probation.

That same attorney was the subject of a second disciplinary proceeding, In re Maples, 06 CH 13, M.R. 21210 (2006).

In that matter, as a loan processor for a mortgage company, he forged the signature of a bank employee on a subordination agreement, and then forged the signature of a notary and affixed the notary stamp of that notary on her forged signature. He also forged a signature on a document entitled Evidence of Insurance in an unrelated matter. Based on this conduct and his prior discipline, he was disbarred on consent.

The above cases illustrate the general pattern that false notarization is typically not the sole charge in a disciplinary action, but just one of several charges of misconduct.

When the attorney is a notary himself or herself and misuses the office of notary, one hearing panel noted that such conduct violates the duties of a notary under 5 ILCS 312/6-102 (2002).

In that case, In re Bulger, 02 CH 40, M.R. 19550 (2004), the attorney was suspended for five months for appealing from an order that was not final or appealable, preparing and notarizing a document that purported to have been signed by his clients but was actually a copy of a page, which they had signed, that was attached to an earlier pleading. He also subsequently provided false information to the court and to the ARDC.

Sometimes, false notarization can lead to further acts of misconduct that can eventually have disastrous consequences for the attorney.

In In re Harris, 98 CH 127, M.R. 16027 (1999), an attorney used his wife’s notary seal and forged her signature to verify a motion for continuance.

He also forged his co-counsel’s signature on a motion for continuance and lied at the contempt hearing, stating that he did not know who had signed the motion.

He was indicted for perjury and pleaded guilty for 24 months probation, 150 hours community service, and a $500 fine. He was suspended from the practice of law for nine months.

In In re Niew, 98 CH 113, M.R. 17491 (2001), an attorney notarized signatures purporting to be those of her clients on pleadings. She also notarized an affidavit attached to a will, even though she knew that statements in the affidavit were false, and made false statements to a client and to the ARDC concerning each matter. She had been previously censured for making false statements. She was suspended for nine months.

Attorneys can also be disciplined when their employees use false notarizations at their direction.

The attorney in In re Reynolds, 32 Ill. 2d 331, 203 N.E.2d 429 (1965), filed bankruptcy petitions accompanied by fraudulent affidavits in nine separate matters. The affidavits contained false statements and bore a purported signature of the attorney, affixed to the affidavits by his secretary with his authorization, who then notarized the purported signatures.

The court found that the false statements were intended to influence the court in allowing Reynolds to file the petitions without prepayment of the filing fee. He was suspended for six months.

In In re Ritacca, 02 CH 79, M.R. 19254 (2004), an attorney was placed on probation for having failed to supervise his secretary.

The attorney represented clients in two civil forfeiture matters.

In both of those matters, the secretary, signed the names of the clients to their respective ”Claim of Interest to the Civil Forfeiture.”

She then notarized the signatures with a notary stamp belonging to another employee without that employee’s knowledge or consent, and caused the claims to be filed with the court.

Cutting corners with notary seals has ethical implications.

Take whatever time is needed and obtain a genuinely notarized signature.

Around the water cooler: A Life Sciences Practice Group

Each week I will highlight a different case or legal happening, and solicit your thoughts on the impact of it in the legal community.

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg recently launched its new Life Sciences Practice Group, which serves those clients within the life sciences and high technology industry. The practice group works with these clients from discovery and development onward through clinical testing and regulatory approval to sales and marketing.

Partner Diane J. Romza-Kutz is chair of the new practice group.

Members of the practice group counsel the firm’s life sciences clients in the areas of corporate, finance, intellectual property protection, clinical development, federal regulatory pre- and post-approval issues, compliance, commercialization, and risk management (including litigation).

The life sciences industries the firm serves include the following: pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical devices, biologics, veterinarian medicine, food, dietary supplements, over-the-counter medicines, cosmetics, and animal feed.

Romza-Kutz, who made the move to the firm in mid-February, said creating this practice group allowed the firm to put different pieces together to create an even better service for clients.

“The life science industry continues to grow at a pretty rapid pace, and will continue to grow going forward,” she said. “A true life sciences practice is one that really covers the gamut.”

Romza-Kutz said she enjoys watching a product go from its research and clinical stages to fruition, and likes knowing that it will benefit others.

“It is exciting to watch the interplay in the industry, the alliances that form, the relationships and joint ventures that form in the industry,” she said. “The industry continues to morph. You have to always monitor it. It is always a challenge to stay up on the changes in the industry.”

Around the water cooler — Q & A with Anita Wilson

Each week we will pose these three questions to different lawyers in the legal community.

This week we talk with Anita J. Wilson, who has been practicing since 1996, and is vice president and chief employment counsel for TreeHouse Foods in Westchester, Ill.

– What do you find the most interesting about your practice?

Labor and employment law is dynamic. It’s always changing and developing.  I can’t remember the last “exciting” estates and trusts case, but there are always new laws and case law developments in labor and employment. These laws and cases are not just interesting from a pedagogical perspective — they have real social and political impact.

For example, look at the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. where the Court ruled that an equal pay claim under Title VII must be filed within 180 days of the specific action that set the discriminatory pay, regardless of its ongoing and continuing discriminatory impact on the employee. That case causes a real shift in how employees and employers look at their pay and really causes one to question the essence of pay discrimination and how it manifests. That’s fascinating and just doesn’t get any better than that.

– What makes a good lawyer?

First and foremost, a good lawyer really enjoys the practice and profession of the law. Secondly, a person who is detail-oriented but also has the ability to see the big picture makes a good lawyer. And a good lawyer is solution- rather than activity-oriented. The best lawyers I know don’t think in terms of motions and what to file — they think in terms of problems and focus relentlessly on how to solve them.

– What is the biggest legal news right now, and what is its impact?

I think the 2008 presidential election is the biggest legal news right now. The next president will probably appoint the next one or two justices on the Supreme Court. The appointment battle alone will be impactful.

Around the water cooler — Green Marketing

Each week we talk about a different legal happening or interesting topic that impacts Chicago lawyers.

Goldberg Kohn’s Climate Change and Resource Conservation Group and Edelman’s CSR and Sustainability Group will present, “The Dos and Don’ts of Green Marketing: What You MUST Know Before Advertising that Your Company is Green.”

Many businesses feel the need to emphasize the environmental benefits of their products and services, according to Goldberg Kohn. Terms like green, eco-friendly, sustainable, or carbon-neutral may appear in a company’s advertising, but it must be ensured that the company understands the rules that apply to “green” marketing claims.

Michael Manuel, a principal and head of the firm’s Climate Change and Resource Conservation Group, said people treat this topic more seriously, and a growing awareness exists that businesses must be careful about what they claim.

“If you are trying to promote yourself as doing something that people perceive is beneficial, you have to back it up,” Manuel said. “People are looking closely at the claims, and [green marketing] is getting more scrutiny.”

Gerald Jenkins, a principal and member of the firm’s climate group, said the seminar will provide people with a tool kit that gives them guidelines about how to answer questions about what they can or cannot say concerning green marketing.

State and local laws, and the Federal Trade Commission, which has held several recent town meetings on this topic, have established rules on this area, Jenkins said. And the FTC plans to provide more extensive guidelines on green marketing.

The seminar, he said, “will give people a feel about what we think the FTC is going to do.”

It will give people a feel for the landscape of what can be said and the possible risks involved, Jenkins said. Some companies address this topic more than others, he said. People involved in the marketing of products are often very interested.

“We will give people not only the legal requirements, but also some practical and reputational [advice],” he said. “Something you might do may be technically legal, but it might embarrass you later.”

For information on registering for “The Dos and Don’ts of Green Marketing: What You MUST Know Before Advertising that Your Company is Green,” contact Paulette Yanow at paulette.yanow@goldbergkohn.com.

Around the water cooler — Jenner & Block pro bono work

Each week we profile an interesting legal happening or interesting lawyer in the legal community.

A Jenner & Block pro bono team was recently honored with a proclamation by Downers Grove Mayor Ronald L. Sandack for its efforts in helping preserve the Blodgett House in Downers Grove, which was an active stopover point on the Underground Railroad and helped a number of slaves find their way to freedom.

According to the proclamation, “the years leading up to the American Civil War, the Blodgett House was the home of local pioneer family Israel and Avis Blodgett and a well-documented station on the Underground Railroad — the route leading from slavery to freedom.”

Partners Barbara M. Flom, Ronald B. Grais, and Michelle M. McAtee, associate Kris Tina Carlston, and former associate Jose R. Rivera provided pro bono legal advice to the Downers Grove Heritage Preservation Corporation, a non-profit formed to preserve the Blodgett House, which was built in 1846 and remains one of the oldest houses in the village.

The house is being moved on a site within a public park, and the organization plans to convert the space into a cultural, educational, and historic museum focusing on the home’s role in the Underground Railroad. The legal team helped form and tax-qualify the organization, secured the donation of the house, and arranged for its transfer to public land.

“It’s really very much like setting up a small business,” Flom said. “There is a lot of very basic pro bono transactional work to be found. But oftentimes it’s narrower than it could be and less interesting than it could be. Unless you have solid support from your firm, it is very easy for the individual lawyer to say, ‘I can’t make the investment because I don’t have the luxury to spend a few hundred hours’ … There are interesting projects, but sometimes you have to be open to taking on more than just a narrowly defined role.”

In this situation, Flom said, the people involved in this project contacted her. She worked with them in the past, and has built a strong history with them.

“As you become more involved, you become aware of other issue, other aspects of the project where you can provide some benefit,” she said.

Still at the top: 2008 Chicago Lawyer’s eighth annual survey of Illinois’ largest law firms

At Sidley Austin’s annual meeting this past April, following tradition, the firm handed out clocks - nice, beautiful clocks - to 13 partners who had reached 25 years with the firm. With lawyers becoming free agents in the last couple of decades, partners and associates are moving between firms as frequently as baseball players shift from team to team. It perhaps is instructive that the largest of Chicago’s firms have a foundation in longevity.

The three gentlemen on the cover of this issue are the chairs of three of the four largest firms that have jostled back-and-forth at the top of the heap since Chicago Lawyer started running this survey — Kirkland & Ellis is now the largest, and has been since 2006; but in 2004 and 2005, Sidley Austin was on top; and before that, from 2001 to 2003, Mayer Brown was the largest firm in the state. During all those years, and for at least two decades, all three have been with the same firm, and have risen to the top. Dan K. Webb left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1985 to join Winston & Strawn, where he is now chairman of the firm; James D. Holzhauer, chairman of Mayer Brown, has been with his firm since 1988; and Thomas A. Cole, the chair of Sidley Austin’s executive committee, has been at Sidley his entire career, beginning in 1975.

This year’s survey shows, once again, modest growth among those 113 firms that participated — a little over 5 percent. Among the largest firms — the 37 firms with 100 and more lawyers — the growth was about 1.8 percent. Nineteen firms grew, 17 lost members, and one, Bollinger, Ruberry & Garvey, stayed the same.

Those firms with 100 or more lawyers in their Chicago offices with the largest percentage increase were Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which increased from 178 lawyers to 198, an 11 percent increase; Swanson, Martin & Bell grew from 91 to 100, a nearly 10 percent increase; and Vedder Price had 9 percent growth, from 199 to 217.

The firms with the greatest decrease were McGuireWoods, which fell from 149 to 131, a 12 percent drop; Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, which lost 16 lawyers from last year’s total of 197, for an 8 percent loss; and DLA Piper, which dropped from 294 to 217, a little under 8 percent.

The top four firms grew this year: Kirkland & Ellis grew by 5 percent; Sidley Austin by 8 percent; Mayer Brown, with all the turmoil of last year, grew by 3 percent; and Winston & Strawn increased by 5 percent. Jenner & Block, the fifth-largest firm, lost six lawyers, from 386 to 380, about 1.5 percent.

The full survey, which lists the number of lawyers in Illinois and worldwide, is available for download and costs $20.00.

Pro Bono: The summer associate life

By Margaret C. Benson
Chicago Volunteer Legal Services

Aaaaahhhhh, the summer associate life.

They celebrate the Cubs from a Wrigleyville rooftop … and help a mom get guardianship over her disabled 18-year old son. They picnic to the sounds of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at Ravinia … and review a licensing agreement for a struggling musician.

They sip champagne and nibble Brie at a senior partner’s swanky party in Lincoln Park … and file an asylum petition for a young man trying to escape certain death by state police in his native country.

Life as a summer associate is a little bit luxury and a little bit reality.

Summer associates have it made. They are paid well, but not worked too hard. Wined and dined, they spend the summer getting a taste of law firm life and business, before heading back to finish that pesky final year of law school. Their ”taste” of business is just that.

For the most part, they spend time in various departments, sampling an assortment of work. One week they may help a litigation partner draft a discovery request, while the next week they review the safe-harbor provision in a security agreement.

And, they sample pro bono. Most firms control, to a certain extent, what type of pro bono their summer associates are allowed to do, offering them a range of projects with certain select pro bono programs. Despite the limitation, the result is still a veritable smorgasbord of opportunities, from working with a team of lawyers on a single, long-term project, to taking on one or two relatively simple, individual cases.

Check out the websites of Chicago’s prestigious law firms — the ones who hire large numbers of summer associates and wine and dine them to distraction. You’ll see that the firm’s pro bono offerings are front and center, along with promises of significant work, significant fun, and, of course, significant salary.

These firms have discovered that pro bono is important to those best and brightest they want to hire. As a result, they make pro bono a centerpiece of their summer associate programs.

Many firms introduce this work to their summer associate class by hosting pro bono breakfasts, luncheons, or receptions, where program staff make formal presentations or simply mingle and talk about the various projects or cases that they offer. The students are encouraged to ask questions and choose their own work from the proffered options.

Some firms have their summers work together on a single group job, such as court observation and statistical gathering for institutional reform projects, or creating manuals and training on legal issues for high school or other general audiences.

Firms that sponsor legal clinics or projects steer their youngsters to that work, too, although never exclusively. Again, it’s all about giving these kids a taste. Pro bono for summer associates benefits all of the players — the firms, the students and the legal service programs.

The programs get work done, in some cases, work that full-time attorneys won’t do. Let’s call it ‘’spade” work — the turning of earth in preparation for future planting. The students get to contribute to work that many of them went to law school to do — save-the-world work.

Once they graduate and have to start repaying their student loans, world-saving loses priority, so these summer jobs take on added importance. And the firms get to evaluate the work of these potentially future employees in a discreet, effective way that doesn’t impact their clients. It’s a win-win-win for all involved.

Thanks to the Public Interest Law Initiative’s (PILI) Graduate Fellowship Program, nearly two-dozen law firms contribute to the summer pro bono scene in another, noteworthy way.

While many firms pay newly hired law graduates a stipend to spend the summer preparing for the bar exam, participating firms pay these students additional money to work for area legal aid and pro bono organizations. These PILI fellows work part-time for five weeks before the bar exam, full-time for the next five weeks, then have a month to relax, travel, and enjoy life before beginning their new careers and, in many cases, not seeing the light of day for several years.

Most PILI fellows love their legal services work and believe that it helped, not hindered their bar exam preparation. The fellowship kept them engaged in interesting, compelling work, and kept them away from friends and colleagues who were freaking out. It also made most of them true converts to pro bono. Although eager to begin their law firm careers, many were reluctant to leave behind the meaningful work they were allowed to handle in their legal aid offices, and took it with them, to complete — pro bono — in their new jobs.

There’s a reason Chicago law firms are offering extensive pro bono opportunities to their summer associates. It’s good for business. And that is good for our profession.

Firm Life

Seven former partners of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell have formed a new law firm, Hinkhouse Williams Walsh, specializing in complex litigation and arbitrations on behalf of the insurance industry. The managing partner of the new firm is Joseph A. Hinkhouse; the other partners are John T. Williams, Patrick T. Walsh, Scott R. Ostericher, Richard O. McDermott, Laura S. McKay, and Sarah H. Dearing.

Lindsay & Rappaport has changed its name to Lindsay, Rappaport & Postel to reflect the elevation of Joseph P. Postel to name partner. David L. Grobart, Yvette Flores, and D. Chad Mihevc have formed Grobart, Flores & Mihevc, in Deerfield.

Cuisinier, Farahvar & Benson, a full-service litigation firm, opened in April at 120 N. LaSalle St.

Thomas C. Cronin, formerly of Cummins & Cronin, has opened a new law firm under the name of Cronin & Co. at 77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4800. He will continue to practice commercial, class-action, and personal-injury litigation.

Wessels & Pautsch has changed its name to Wessels, Pautsch & Sherman, to reflect the recognition of senior shareholder James B. Sherman.

Vedder Price has formed a subprime lending and mortgage task force to help clients with investigations and lawsuits that may arise from the contraction of the mortgage and credit markets.

Nixon Peabody has announced the opening of its Shanghai office. It is the firm’s first office in Asia. The firm opened an office in London in 2007.

Ungaretti & Harris has opened an office in Grand Rapids, Mich. The office is managed by Joseph L. Voss.

Nanette R. Elster, a partner at Spence & Elster, has been named director of The Health Law Institute at DePaul University College of Law.

Thomas E. Chomicz, a partner at Quarles & Brady, has been reelected as board chair of St. Xavier University.

Louis G. Apostol, a partner in Apostol & Kowal, and a commissioner to the Illinois Court of Claims, has been elected president of the Hellenic Foundation.

Tara R. Devine, an associate at Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, was selected to serve on the Board of Directors for the Illinois Women’s Chamber of Commerce.

Joseph P. Switzer, a partner at Swanson, Martin & Bell, has become a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Lawrence I. Richman, a partner at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, has been elected a fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel.

Terrence J. Lavin of Lavin Law Offices has been inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Jonathan Vegosen, a partner at Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn, has been appointed a director-at-large to the board of the USTA Tennis & Education Foundation.

James D. Brusslan, of counsel at Levenfeld Pearlstein, has become the only practicing Illinois attorney accredited by the U.S. Green Building Council as a LEED AP (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional).

Frederick H. Cohen, a principal at Goldberg Kohn, was appointed to the board of the Public Interest Law Initiative.

Jeffrey M. Dalebroux has been elected to serve a second term on Dykema’s executive board, and Michael C. Borders, the partner in charge of the firm’s Chicago office for the last four years, has been appointed to the executive committee.

Wildman Harrold has appointed Kenneth E. Bedno as chief financial officer. Bedno was previously the firm’s finance director.

> Partners

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has named two new partners in the firm’s Chicago office: David F. Levy, tax, and Patrick J. Nash Jr., corporate restructuring.

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell has appointed partner Jon Biasetti as co-chair of the firm’s insurance practice group. And Daniel Schlessinger, a former managing partner and chair of the Chicago office, has been named to the firm’s executive committee.

McAndrews, Held & Malloy has promoted five attorneys to partner: Oggie Beremski, Merle S. Elliott, Consuelo Garcia Erwin, Christopher M. Scharff, and Philip H. Sheridan. The firm has also elevated five attorneys to its board of directors: Christopher V. Carani, Sandra A. Frantzen, Wilhelm L. Rao, Ronald H. Spuhler, and John A. Wiberg.

Bollinger, Ruberry & Garvey has elevated Christopher G. Buenik, construction and personal-injury litigation; Ronitha D. Maharaj, tort litigation; and W. Grant Farrar, construction and personal-injury litigation; to partner.

Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen announced that four attorneys have become partners with the firm: Tamara K. Hackmann (Urbana office); Douglas R. Heise and Michael D. Schag (Edwardsville office); and Drew M. Schilling (Rockford office).

> In-House

Dean A. Frankel has been promoted to vice president and general counsel at Relational Technology Solutions in Rolling Meadows.

To Chicago Investment Group: general counsel and chief regulatory officer Howard J. Rosenburg, from DLA Piper.

> Moves

To Dewey & LeBoeuf: partner Mark R. Goodman, insurance transactional, from Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell.

To Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor: new associate Brett A. Harvey, labor and employment.

To Grippo & Elden: new associate Pei Yuan Chung, commercial litigation.

To Reed Smith: partner Arnold E. Grant, tax, benefits, and wealth planning, from McGuireWoods.

To Holland & Knight: senior counsel Bryan T.D. Jung, financial services and structured finance and securitization, from Foley & Lardner.

To SmithAmundsen: partners Robert E. Lessman, construction; and Joshua E. Hornaday (Waukegan office), family law, from Nadler, Pritikin & Mirabelli.

To Tabet DiVito & Rothstein: partner Christopher D. Liguori, litigation, from Jenner & Block.

To Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart: Thomas E. Deer, shareholder, labor and employment, from Locke Reynolds in Indianapolis; new associate Steven R. Schinderle, benefits; and of counsel Logan A. Hollobaugh, construction law.

To Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney: associates Natacha D. Von Will, commercial, construction, and environmental, from Stone & Moore; and Troy S. Radunsky, commercial, construction, and insurance, from SmithAmundsen.

To McGuireWoods: associates Adrienne L. Walker Porter, tax and employee benefits, from the Center for Conflict Resolution; and Jason S. Greis, health care, from Seyfarth Shaw.

To Loeb & Loeb: partners Jeremy D. Margolis and Robert M. Andalman, litigation, from Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal.

To Chuhak & Tecson: partner Bruce W. Craig, banking law, creditors’ rights, and commercial real estate, from Banco Popular North America, where he was in-house counsel.

To Schiff Hardin: associate Kathryn McCullough Long, environmental, from Balber Pickard Maldonado & Van Der Tuin, in New York City.

To Anderson, Rasor & Partners: partner Karie J. Valentino, medical malpractice defense, from Bollinger, Ruberry & Garvey.

To Drinker Biddle & Reath: counsel Charles D. Katz, tax, from Duane Morris.

To Kirkland & Ellis: partners Bruce L. Gelman, real estate and tax planning; Thomas A. Geraghty, corporate tax; and Joshua P. Hanna, real estate; all are from Mayer Brown.

To Greenberg Traurig: shareholders Miriam G. Bahcall and Steven M. Malina, and associate Beth A. Black, all in litigation, and all are from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; and of counsel Chad D. Striker, corporate and securities.

To Reed Smith: partner Arnold E. Grant, tax, benefits, and wealth planning, from McGuireWoods.

To Perkins Coie: associates Brian A. Audette and Eric E. Walker, both in bankruptcy and workouts, and both from DLA Piper.

To Arnstein & Lehr: partner Justin L. Weisberg and associate W. Matthew Bryant, both in construction, and both from BryceDowney.

To Chapman and Cutler: partner Jeffrey I. Langer, banking, from Dreher Langer & Tomkies (Columbus, Ohio).

To Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen: of counsel William J. Charnock, civil rights and commercial litigation, from the Office of Kanawha County (W. Va.) Prosecuting Attorney, where he was the elected prosecuting attorney; and John P. Heil Jr., complex civil litigation, from the Cook County state’s attorney’s office; and new associates Jesse A. Placher, general tort litigation (Peoria); Christopher T. Polillo, civil litigation (Springfield); Brian M. Smith, civil litigation (Urbana); and Gary C. Pinter, general tort litigation (Edwardsville).

To Handler, Thayer & Duggan: senior counsel Gloria L. Materre, commercial practice, from Materre & Associates; associate Brian P. Tsu, tax, from PricewaterhouseCoopers; and new associates Izabela Czajkowska, tax; and Alexander I. Hock, commercial practice.

To Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal: partner Corinne Pavlis Carr, insurance regulatory, from Duane Morris.

To Shefsky & Froelich: shareholder Mark J. Nora, real estate, from Holland & Knight.

To Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell: partners Robert M. Stephenson, white-collar practice, from Foley & Lardner; and David W. Wirt, bankruptcy, from Winston & Strawn.

To Levin & Schreder: partner William R. Franzen, private client and estate planning, from McDermott Will & Emery; and associate Rick Y. Gelboim, private client practice, from Jenner & Block.

To Stahl Cowen Crowley Addis: associate Jeremy P. Kreger, litigation.

To Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus: shareholder Fredric J. Entin, health care, from Foley & Lardner.

To Leydig, Voit & Mayer: new associates Alice C. Su, patent litigation in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals; and Elias P. Soupos, prosecution of patents in the mechanical, electromechanical, and software arts.

To Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione: scientific advisor Liuchun Yang, chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology arts, from SynChem, Inc., where she was a project coordinator.

To Welsh & Katz: principal Edward J. Chalfie, patent and trademark protection, from Ladas & Parry.

To Karbal, Cohen, Economou, Silk & Dunne: partner Edward Fitzsimmons Dunne, commercial and construction litigation, from Crisham & Kubes.

> Changes

Ralph E. Brown, a Chicago attorney who most recently was a shareholder and of counsel at Schuyler Roche, died in April, at age 79.

Walter Durley Boyle, a Hennepin attorney who was still practicing last year at age 94 as of counsel at Boyle & Bolin, died April 13.

Thomas F. Carmody, presiding judge, 5th Municipal District in Bridgeview, died of an apparent heart attack April 22, at age 56.

« Previous Page — Next Page »