Counsel’s Table: One too many bites

By Russell B. Selman
Katten Muchin Rosenman
Restaurant Critic

As a food reviewer, there are many times where I feel like a scout sent ahead to see if the food is safe to eat. This role is very different from my lawyering role, where the client is generally the one who is sent ahead. In both cases I remain heroically optimistic, but let’s face it, the reason why so many of us lawyers are not food reviewers is that there is a decided preference in our profession for others to taste the grub.

I admit that on occasion my dual roles overlap, and I think that I am the better for the training I have from both roles. When, for example, I recently ate out at a Florida fish house with an elderly aunt, my waiter allowed my baked potato to tumble to the floor just short of our table. The waiter apologized and said he’d bring another. My lawyer training kicked in with me braying, ”Uh-Uh-Uh,” and swaying my neck sideways like Wanda Sykes. ”You leave that potato here and bring me another and then you can take this potato away.” My 89-year-old aunt beamed at me and asked where I learned such peasant wisdom. I winked at her and pointed at my head (at least I think I pointed at my head and not at the potato).

In retrospect, such decision-making was the lawyerly part of my skeptical personality. Of course, I had no specific information that the establishment would re-serve the errant potato but, hey, why take the chance — and, besides, I had an opportunity to display my ”flashy” side to my aunt — a narcisstic double play for a lawyer and therefore impossible to resist.

By contrast, or so I wrongly thought, was my visit to Real Tenochtitlan (RT). While this place along Milwaukee Avenue is very new, the chef has successfully operated other fine establishments for many years that routinely turned out very good Mexican food. Strong flavors, moles that seem to steep and enhance flavors as the week stretches and the separate mole pots mix — a place I like to frequent. A safe reviewer’s choice: same food, new location, and typically festive, OLE! Review is done.

Things did not work out that way, this time. I started with a tamale and ended with an anecdote.

What happened was that the tamale was served cold, not icicle cold, just a ways below room temperature, so the flavors were not forthcoming. I hailed my waiter, who regretted this mistake and agreed to bring me a new, and warm tamale. Hey, it happens, no big deal, was my temperature.

After about 15 minutes, the waiter made another apologetic fuss and presented my new tamale. Now, 15 minutes seemed a long time, but it takes time to make a tamale (I told myself) and it wasn’t like RT just re-heated my old cold tamale. My waiter smiled deeply and stood by to ensure that all was well as I prepared to savor …

Time stopped, a beat or two, as I regarded my tamale, which was missing its top/bottom. ”Hey — what’s going on? My tamale’s been eaten,” I exclaimed with a passion not unlike Dreyfus’ ”J’Accuse!” admittedly uttered under dissimilar circumstances, but just as keenly felt.

My waiter, not a student of Franco-Jewish history, denied any such connection and denied the bite marks presence. ”B-b-b-b-ut, look,” I stammered, ”my twamale has a bite mark!” (When upset, my pronunciations go their own way). Since I had used a fork to cut into TWAMALE #1 (please mark the exhibit) and TWAMALE #2 has a bite (not mine, by the way, and I will call my forensics expert later, your honor) we had a diabolic conspiracy underway. I began to think about merchandizing both international book and film rights (Oliver Stone calling on line 2).

Still, and necessarily perhaps, my waiter refused to see what the whole world could see (and be moved by when I am played by Gael Garcia Bernal). ”Senor, that is not a bite,” he said, and he reminded me of the old joke about a wife catching her husband in bed with another woman with the husband saying, ”Who do you believe — me or your own eyes?”

”OK, then, what is it? Looks like a bite, NO?” Reply — ”Yes it looks like a bite, but that cannot be.” We had a standoff — yes a Mexican standoff. And I began to hear the eerie whistling of a Lee Van Cleef spaghetti Western.

So what can I say? As a food critic I took and reported on the road ahead for the benefit of all. As a lawyer, I say, a potato in hand is worth two twamales in the bush.

Pleadings:
Real Tenochtitlan
2451 N. Milwaukee Ave.
773-227-1050

Court Costs:
Appetizers $8-10
Entrees $20-30

No Rating

Financial Services: CEO’s requirement to supervise reasonably

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

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission instituted settled administrative proceedings against Stephen Moynahan (SEC Rel.No. 34-58689). Moynahan was the president and CEO of Dolphin & Bradbury, Inc., formerly a registered broker-dealer.

The SEC found that Moynahan failed reasonably to supervise a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Robert Bradbury, an investment banker and co-owner of the firm. Without admitting or denying the findings, Moynahan consented to the entry of an order that bars him from supervising, bars him from owning another firm, suspends him for six months, and fines him $140,000. Importantly, the SEC imposed those substantial sanctions despite recognizing that Moynahan had ”no knowledge” of Bradbury’s fraudulent scheme. Let’s examine why.

As background, the SEC found that Bradbury had engaged in a fraudulent scheme to offer and sell, primarily to various Pennsylvania school districts, a series of risky, short-term, tax-exempt notes underwritten by Dolphin & Bradbury to finance a speculative golf course project known as Whitetail (the ”Whitetail Notes”). The Whitetail Notes were unsuitable for the school districts, and also violated state law restrictions on what were permissible investments for public funds. Prior to those sales to the school districts, Bradbury had been unable to find sufficient suitable investors. The SEC also found that neither Bradbury nor the firm disclosed to the school districts the material risks associated with the Whitetail Notes.

Moreover, the SEC determines that, although Bradbury ”developed a practice of buying and selling securities on behalf of the school districts without first discussing the transactions with any school district representatives,” there was no authority to trade in this kind of discretionary manner.

Finally, the SEC found that Bradbury ”repeatedly executed and delivered false and misleading documents,” not only to demonstrate that the purchasers of the Whitetail Notes indeed were sophisticated and/or accredited investors, but also to show that the firm owned some of the Whitetail Notes. Some of these documents were faxed and e-mailed.

Despite his lack of knowledge of Bradbury’s fraudulent scheme, the SEC focused on the fact that Moynahan was ”generally responsible” for firm supervision, with some duties expressly assigned to him.

The SEC determined that Moynahan ”failed to review the firm’s written supervisory procedures, failed to establish, or delegate to anyone else responsibility for establishing, reasonable supervisory procedures with respect to the firm’s underwriting business, failed to adequately comply with many of the provisions of the written supervisory procedures that were in place, and failed to affirmatively delegate to anyone else responsibility for supervising Bradbury.”

The firm had procedures in place to detect unsuitable investments, but the unsuitable Whitetail Note purchases went undetected because of Moynahan’s failure to supervise.

For example, Moynahan was responsible for customer transactions and correspondence, yet failed to adequately review and endorse them by initialing the daily trade blotter and copies of correspondence. Indeed, the SEC found that, despite being required to retain copies of correspondence, ‘’some critical communications concerning the Whitetail Notes were neither retained nor available for review.”

While Moynahan did routinely review the daily trade blotter, he limited his review to learn what kind of business the firm was conducting and at what profit levels. He ”routinely” excluded another part of the daily trade blotter, which flagged investment purchases inconsistent with the customer’s investment objectives. The SEC found that the system worked — it flagged the Whitetail Note purchases as being potentially unsuitable investments for school districts — but Moynahan never saw the warnings!

Most remarkable was Moynahan’s failure to implement any policies or procedures to conduct due diligence investigations of securities that the firm underwrote. The SEC found that Moynahan ”believed it was appropriate for each investment banker at Dolphin & Bradbury, including Bradbury, to operate independently and without supervision!”

Consequently, the SEC stated that neither Moynahan nor anyone else at the firm ”reviewed Bradbury’s due diligence investigations in connection with the underwritings of the Whitetail Notes, including any of the written representations made by Bradbury. —”

In view of all of those significant failures to supervise, Moynahan’s lack of knowledge as to Bradbury’s fraudulent scheme served as no meaningful defense to the substantial sanctions that the SEC has imposed. Supervisors — and lawyers who counsel them and their firms — should understand that the SEC will not tolerate the ”head in the sand” defense.

Ethics: Taking a deed from a client

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

Is it proper for a lawyer to take a deed to a client’s real estate to secure the payment of the lawyer’s legal fees? The answer is, it depends on the circumstances.

Generally, when a lawyer takes a deed to a client’s property at the outset of the attorney-client relationship as part of the retainer agreement, and it is understood that the deed is only being held as a lien, and not intended as a conveyance of title, there is no violation of the rules.

In In re Peters, 91 CH 541 (April 10, 1995) an attorney agreed to represent a client in a pending dissolution of marriage for an hourly rate.

The retainer agreement did not refer to a security interest in the marital residence. The attorney had the client sign a quitclaim deed that conveyed the client’s joint tenancy interest in the property to the attorney’s firm. The deed did not specify that it was intended as security for the payment of legal fees, but the attorney and client orally agreed that its purpose was to create a lien to secure payment of attorney’s fees.

Although the Review Board found the attorney’s conduct ”troubling” because it could lead to a potential conflict of interest between attorney and client, it dismissed the charges because the ethics rules allow a lawyer to acquire a lien granted by law to secure the attorney’s fees or expenses.

Under McGill v. Biggs, 434 N.E.2d 772, 61 Ill.Dec. 417 (1982), a quitclaim deed may be used to secure payment of a debt, and it is the intent of the parties that controls whether a deed will operate as a conveyance or a lien. Because the deed in this case was a lien allowed by law, it did not constitute obtaining an ownership interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

Because taking the quitclaim deed as a lien to secure payment of fees was part of the initial fee arrangement between the lawyer and client at the outset of the relationship, it did not constitute overreaching or an improper business relationship with a client.

In In re Petrich, 07 CH 76, M.R. 22280 (May 19, 2008), an attorney obtained a quitclaim deed to his client’s house for payment of his anticipated legal fees in a federal criminal case.

He was censured for overreaching because he had not sufficiently protected his client’s interest in the property.

The attorney and client agreed that the fee (of an unspecified amount) would be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the client’s house, which was worth between $35,000 and $70,000.

Two months after having been retained, the client signed a quitclaim deed transferring ownership of the house to the attorney.

The attorney never provided any writing to explain and memorialize the client’s continuing interest in the property.

The attorney did not advise the client of the consequences of relinquishing title to his property or of the amount of accrued or anticipated legal fees, did not reach any agreement as to the amount that would be used to pay additional counsel, and did not advise him to seek independent counsel regarding the transaction.

The client was ultimately represented by the federal defender.

The attorney entered his appearance in the federal case, but his appearance was ordered withdrawn after the prosecutor made an oral motion to disqualify him due to his representation of one of the witnesses in the case. The client was convicted.

The facts of this case are distinguishable from those of Peters, in part, because the client signed the deed two months after having retained the attorney; thus, the deed transaction was not part of the initial fee agreement negotiated between the attorney and his potential client.

Sometimes the manner in which the transaction occurs makes an otherwise acceptable agreement unethical. In In re Pantoga, M.R. 12137, 96 CH 27 (1996), an attorney was censured for overreaching — not for taking title to three properties belonging to his client’s sister, but for drafting the fee agreement to allocate to himself the power to unilaterally decide how to apportion the legal fees between himself and the other attorney, without disclosing that fact to the client or his agent, and by refusing to return the proceeds of the sale of two properties in excess of the fee.

If you are considering taking a deed from a client to protect your fees, remember that this is a risky proposition. Be sure to address the concerns expressed in these cases. Consider whether you are seeking to take the deed as part of your initial retainer agreement or are entering into a separate business transaction with a client.

Also, provide the appropriate safeguards so that it is clear that you are holding the deed as a lien and not with the intent to convey title.

Be careful about the other rights you take with respect to any sale of the property and the disbursement of funds.

Profile: Jeffrey Steinback

By Maria Kantzavelos

Days after former newspaper tycoon Conrad Black was convicted in a highly publicized criminal fraud trial that drew hundreds of U.S. and international reporters to the federal courthouse in Chicago, attorney Jeffrey Steinback and the British baron known as Lord Black of Crossharbour were lunching on sandwiches one afternoon in a downtown hotel.

There, Steinback recalled recently, the two talked for hours — on topics other than the case in which Black was convicted of participating in a scheme to defraud Hollinger International of $6.1 million when he was chief executive officer of the media empire that once owned the Chicago Sun-Times.

They covered a lot of ground on that summer afternoon in 2007, Steinback said, engaging in ”fascinating” conversation about Black’s youth and upbringing, his interests, his personal goals, his views on life, his experiences in business, and his passions for history and writing.

The get-together was the first of many sessions Steinback convened thereafter with Black, in order to get to know the man he would eventually paint a portrait of for U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve, as part of his quest for leniency for his client, who had hired him to handle the sentencing phase of his case.

”Everyone had said that Conrad Black was arrogant, defiant, unlikable, and was going to get absolutely the biggest sentence the court could provide,” Steinback said. ”I thought, let me get to know Conrad. Let me get to try to understand him.”

The man Steinback came to know, he said, was ”nothing like the image that had been portrayed of him in the media.” Rather, Steinback saw a man who was candid and self-effacing, with a great sense of humor and an inquisitive mind.

”He’s a brilliant man — an immense amount of philosophy, extraordinarily well-read and well-bred. People mistook the breeding for arrogance,” Steinback said. ”He carries himself with a great air of dignity, which often can be misconstrued as arrogance, and it’s not — it’s just him.”

”He could no more sound like he was from the Bronx than someone from the Bronx could sound like him,” Steinback continued. ”You are how you’re raised. He was sent to boarding schools. He was born of a certain level of, if not aristocracy, at least extraordinarily well-to-do. That was how he was raised, and to be anything other than that would be phony.”

For Steinback — a veteran criminal defense attorney who is considered one of Chicago’s leading experts on federal sentencing guidelines, as well as a master plea bargainer whose practice focuses largely on resolving white-collar criminal matters short of trial — it is the whole person, rather than a mere description contained within the four corners of an indictment, that is at the heart of his work.

And, although Steinback stresses that he did not set out on a path to carve out the niche practice he has come to be known for, the specialty has long been the right fit for the former college gymnast who competed on the still rings in the early 1970s for the University of Iowa, where he majored in psychology.

”It’s important for me to understand what makes my clients tick,” Steinback said. ”I learned a long time ago that you can’t expect your opposition to care more about your client than you do. You can’t really expect judges to do the same thing. … You need to give them reasons to care and to be concerned about your client for it to make a difference to them what happens.

”I work hard — and it’s not hard for me to do — to find those qualities in people that are likeable. I look for them,” Steinback said. ”I first seek to find what’s good, understanding that in the context of that, something bad happened.”

‘One of a kind’

Winston & Strawn chairman Dan K. Webb, a former U.S. attorney and a high-profile litigator who handles cases around the country, called Steinback a ”fixture” in the city’s white-collar criminal defense bar, where he is widely known for his expertise in negotiating plea deals with prosecutors in complex criminal cases.

”He’s one of a kind,” Webb said. ”He’s got what we call a niche practice that I don’t know of another lawyer in America has in any other city. There’s nobody that competes against him; there’s no one else that has this kind of practice. And, I would say every single white-collar defense lawyer in Chicago, if they have a case that needs special attention in getting a deal done with the U.S. attorney’s office, they at least think about contacting Jeff.

”He has built up this reputation that he can get a deal done better than anybody else,” Webb said. ”The bottom line is, I think there’s a general perception and reality that, because of the trust and confidence prosecutors have in him, he’s able to ultimately get terms that are more favorable than others might get in his negotiating.”

For the better half of his 32-year-long law career, Steinback, 57, has focused his practice on three areas: negotiating plea deals, almost exclusively for clients charged with federal crimes; working to secure the lightest possible sentence for clients charged with or convicted of such crimes; and aiming to convince prosecuting authorities not to indict a client who has become the target of a federal probe, or to bring lesser charges.

Simply put, he said, ”Mostly, what I do is, I get involved at various stages and try to minimize the consequences of the predicament.”

Although Steinback has tried numerous cases in his career, the vast majority of the sole practitioner’s clients today come to him to resolve criminal matters short of trial. Others, like Black — who, months after that first meeting with Steinback was sentenced to six and one-half years in prison, significantly lower than the sentence prosecutors had originally sought — turn to Steinback post-conviction.

”I have, I suppose, a luxury. I’m not trying to prove my client innocent, or disprove his guilt, or force the government to prove my client’s guilt,” Steinback said, from his modest Loop office in the historic Monadnock building. ”We have a common set of facts that we oftentimes can agree to. … The battle you’re fighting is the one to minimize the consequences of the operative impact of those facts.”

Whether those minimized consequences might translate to a lighter sentence, a lesser charge, or a decision not to charge, Steinback said his work toward that end takes a great deal of preparation and patience, and a good dose of intuition.

”Each case, no matter how many years it seems I’ve done this, brings its own uniqueness. There’s always something different about the individual, or a ripple or two in the facts that are different, which cause you to take a different angle in how you want to try to, essentially, solve the problem,” he said. ”Sometimes, solutions don’t come obviously. You see something for what you think it is, and when you dig more deeply you find there really is a different direction you have to take. It’s all a function of so many different factors. It isn’t cookie-cutter. You don’t see a certain case, go into a certain mode, resolve it in a certain way and then present it the same way each time.”

For Steinback, who sometimes hesitates when he hears the word ”niche” in relation to his practice (”It sounds rather commercial to me,” he said), the focus of his practice evolved out of necessity, years after veteran criminal defense lawyer Edward Genson gave him his first job out of law school in 1976.

The seed was planted around the time when Steinback found himself serving as ‘’second in command” while Genson, who had become ill, underwent several surgeries that kept him away from work for months.

”There were a lot of cases that needed to be evaluated. I didn’t want Eddie coming back to a hundred trials. How was he ever going to manage all of that work? He was a very busy lawyer before he had gotten sick,” Steinback recalled. ”So, I started to look at these cases, particularly the federal cases … to see if some of these cases could be resolved by way of plea agreements. And I started to negotiate some of them, and began to work out some reasonably favorable deals. … I started to do that and, evidently, got reasonably good at it. Not because I was intentionally pursuing that niche, just because it was necessary.

”Somehow, over a period of time, other people would come in because they knew that I specialized in that, which really wasn’t something I had set out to do. Lawyers would call and say, ‘I’ve got this case, Genson. I know you’ve got this young associate who does this kind of work.”’

‘A Jeff Steinback experience’

”Virtually every veteran prosecutor has had a Jeff Steinback experience,” said Perkins Coie partner Patrick Collins, a former star assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago. ”He has a very good negotiating way about him that is not overbearing. It’s firm, but it’s also polite and diplomatic. He would be a great diplomat in the UN. Good negotiators can find common ground. I think he’s expert at finding the common ground.”

Zachery Fardon, a litigation partner at Latham & Watkins, recalled having several dealings with Steinback from his years as a federal prosecutor in Chicago.

”Jeff is a very humane guy. He’s a very humble man, and he is somebody who, as a result of a combination of his intellect, his modesty and his humaneness, has complete credibility with prosecutors and with judges alike,” Fardon said. ”There are not very many lawyers in this game that you can say that about.”

Steinback is also praised for his expertise in navigating the federal sentencing guidelines, a complex system formed when Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission to see that similar crimes receive similar punishments. The guidelines were considered mandatory for years until 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Booker that they were merely advisory, and that certain sentencing enhancements were unconstitutional.

”The guidelines are such a maze, and Jeff has a brilliant mind and an uncanny ability to exploit every nuance and loop. He knows the book like the back of his hand. He does that, and that’s impressive unto itself,” Fardon said.

All things human

When the federal sentencing guidelines were adopted in 1987, Steinback immersed himself in the technicalities of the new system and was left with the same impression he had before delving into the details.

”This was the worst thing to possibly come about, because it deprived judges of their ability to exercise reasonable discretion, and left most of the decision-making in the hands of the prosecution,” Steinback said. ”And, it attempted to quantify human behavior on a two-axis grid, which just simply can’t be done. There are too many ad hoc factors that come into play.”

He offered the following scenario:

Say, for example, two women of around the same age and of similar backgrounds embezzle about $1 million from their employers. One of the women, he said, is ”buying townhomes on the Riviera” and ”gorging” herself on caviar. The other, who is battling cancer and using the money to help her friends and family (a real-life client of Steinback’s several years ago), is ”taking care of the hopeless and the needy, based on a desperate circumstance in which she thought she was going to die at any moment.”

”Those are not like offenders, and they are not, in my judgment, necessarily entitled to the exact, same sentence — give or take a few months,” he said.

Although he noted that the 2005 Booker decision ”didn’t go far enough,” he was pleased about the finding of unconstitutionality. And, although the guidelines were, in a sense, ”demoted” when they became advisory, Steinback said, ”Now, they essentially are one among many factors that are considered in another statute, which, happily, considers things like the history and characteristics of the offender as the mandatory consideration, as opposed to something that was deemed virtually irrelevant under the guidelines.

”The guidelines said things like age, health, familial ties, community involvement, and all of those kinds of very human things were irrelevant in determining what the guideline range should be,” Steinback continued. ”Everything human was mandated out of existence, and judges were handcuffed. It is a far better system that we have now — far closer to the one that I began to work in, in which there was discretion.”

Beyond Steinback’s expertise in federal sentencing guidelines, Fardon said, ”what distinguishes Jeff is that he often delivers the soft stuff with complete resonance and ability.”

”Once you’ve done the math, then you’ve got the need to humanize your client to the judge and make the judge understand all the very human and mitigating considerations on why a judge should be lenient,” Fardon said. ”Jeff understands that, and he’s masterful in his ability to send that message to the court.”

Collins echoed that sentiment, recalling his own Steinback experiences.

”I don’t think anyone presents the humanity about a defendant better than Jeff,” Collins said. ”He had the unparalleled ability in the sentencing hearing to present the humanity of a defendant in a way that never called into question whether the defendant was accepting responsibility for his criminal conduct. I think Jeff was very good at keeping that the focus: ‘I did it. I knew better. And, here’s who I am as a person.”’

Empathy and compassion, and ”obligations of one person to another” come with the territory in Steinback’s line of work.

”When somebody comes to you and asks you to help them, they’re really, truly asking you to represent them in the truest sense of that word: ‘Care about me, be concerned with what happens to me, and use your expertise to do the best you can for me,”’ he said.

That sense of empathy and compassion for people in a bind is a lesson he took away from his parents, he said, while growing up as the eldest of three brothers in Northbrook at a time when the northwest suburb of Chicago was ”populated largely by starter homes and blue-collar workers, scratching and clawing to put together a down payment, so they could buy their first house.”

For Steinback, the son of an electrical engineer who ‘’scratched and cobbled together $500 to put a down payment on an $18,000 home in 1954,” athletics has always been his outlet.

”I spent countless hours in gyms, long before they were fashionable places,” he said.

Whether it was high school football, college gymnastics, or rugby, which he took up in law school at Iowa, ”I always had this ability to play any game I played with absolute, utter reckless abandonment. I was usually a more quiet, reserved kid on the outside, but when it came to these games, I basically just opened up.”

By the time he was an established criminal defense lawyer, working with Genson on such high-profile cases as those resulting from the Operation Greylord probe of judicial corruption in the early 1980s, Steinback had taken up amateur boxing, competing in Chicago Golden Gloves tournaments and other local club fights.

Today, Steinback, the father of one son and two daughters, who lives with his wife, Patti, in an area north of Rockford, has taken a break from coaching varsity soccer at Glenbrook North High School. But he plans to return to his alma mater in spring, after adding hip replacement surgery to the host of surgeries he’s undergone for sports-related injuries.

The pending surgery, however, hasn’t slowed him down. He recently took up canoe racing, a sport that allows him to spend time with his son, Judson, a triathlete who needed a partner for a leg of his competitions.

With Steinback serving as the bowman, the father-son team has finished first in several races, including an 8-miler in early October on the Kickapoo River, in southwestern Wisconsin.

”Canoeing winds up being perfect, because I can get in that boat and start hammering that water, listening to my son’s commands to switch, and I don’t stop until the race is over,” Steinback said. ”That’s another place to find some refuge from the rigors of this demanding profession.”

He credits a passionate high school business-law teacher and an uncle who worked as in-house counsel for an insurance company who took a 10-year-old Steinback to see movies such as ”To Kill a Mockingbird,” with influencing his decision to pursue the study of law.

And, his role in the dismissal of a burglary case brought by a police officer who seemed like he was ”looking to put a charge on this guy” — a tough steel worker whom Steinback came to know while serving as an intern during law school with the county attorney’s office in Mason City, Iowa, helped him realize that he was better suited for defense work than prosecution.

He had sent out a number of resumes in pursuit of job opportunities in criminal defense, when he received a callback from Genson, who hired Steinback out of law school ”for about $10,000 a year, $200 a week — flat,” Steinback said.

”While I was at the bottom rung of that totem pole — I even did the filing at different courthouses for secretaries, carried briefcases — I also did the appeal work, and the motion practice, continuances, and then second-chairs …,” Steinback said.

After several years, Steinback and Genson became partners and the two remained in practice together for nearly 20 years.

”It was scary how good he was at sentencings,” Genson said. ”We used to marvel at the number of judges that used to get off the bench and reconsider. Judges generally come out with an idea as to what they’re going to do, and Jeff convinced the people to rethink it. He’d start arguing and the judge would take a few minutes before he ruled because he’d try to digest what he’d said.

”He’s smart, he’s eloquent. And, he believes. When he argues, he argues what he believes.”

Cindy Giacchetti, a Chicago criminal defense attorney who first met Steinback when she served as a federal prosecutor in Chicago in the late 1970s, said she has seen firsthand the impact of Steinback’s approach to his craft.

”I’ve seen him in a courtroom at a sentencing literally turn a judge around, in terms of how a judge viewed his client. That’s a hard thing to do at sentencing, and he does it masterfully,” Giacchetti said. ”I’ve seen a judge come out, absolutely livid at what this particular defendant had done and by the end of the sentencing understanding and, frankly, giving what clearly is a lower sentence.”

Steinback has handled the cases of numerous high-profile clients, including former Chicago city clerk James Laski, who was sentenced to two years in prison after admitting he took bribes in the city’s Hired Truck Program; former Gov. George Ryan’s campaign manager, Scott Fawell, in a plea deal calling for his cooperation as a witness in Ryan’s public corruption trial, in exchange for the government’s urging of a lenient sentence in a related case against Fawell’s fiance; and political insider Stuart Levine, in a plea deal, Steinback said, that calls for a sentence of about five years in prison, rather than the 30-year to life-sentence he potentially faced, in exchange for his extensive cooperation in a number of ongoing public corruption investigations.

However, it could be said that Steinback’s greatest successes are those never seen or heard about. And that, he said, is fine by him.

”An investigation can be stopped before it ever turns into a charge, and no one is going to know about it. My client will be all the better for it, and will go on,” he said.

Much of Steinback’s time is spent on cases that have not yet been indicted. There, he said, the focus is on convincing the prosecution either not to indict or to indict with lesser charges. Along the way, he said, a certain amount of plea-bargaining can come into play.

His clients come to him from a variety of avenues, many of them from trial attorneys like Genson.

”If I don’t see a trial, or if I go to trial and lose, he comes in,” Genson said. ”I send him some of my clients. If I think it’s a case that he can help me with, a case where I feel his presence will help the client, I bring him in.”

There are also the clients who come to Steinback in a state of high anxiety and despair.

”You come in and you sit down and you say, ‘I have been living with my guilt for the last three years. I embezzled from my employer. I found this way to do it — probably $1 million over time. I work for this giant corporation. I know, eventually, they’re going to catch me, and I just can’t live with this anymore. I want to go in and I want to get it over with. I cannot go to sleep one more night living with this guilt and this fear and this anxiety.”’

Getting to the reasons why a client committed a particular crime, he said, is always an important part of his work.

”You do try to stand in their shoes — understand what makes them tick. Not just what they did, but why did they do it? How did they get into that situation? So you can come up with a better solution for them,” Steinback said. ”If you’re a judge and you see this misconduct out of what seems to be an otherwise decent individual, don’t you ask yourself, why? Why did you take a perfectly good life and throw it away? It’s one of the most important parts.”

Finding an ”explanation, not an excuse” was key to a ”career-type case” for Steinback in 2001, when sentencing guidelines were mandatory. His client — a woman who admitted to embezzling about $250,000 from her employer — avoided a possible prison sentence and was sentenced to probation after Steinback argued that his client had an out-of-control shopping compulsion stemming from severe mental and emotional disorders.

Another of his high-profile clients, former Illinois Treasurer Jerry Cosentino was sentenced to five years on probation and nine months of home confinement for bank fraud, after pleading guilty to a check-kiting scheme. In that case, Steinback said he argued against incarceration, citing the ”extraordinarily personable” and ”proud” man’s severe health issues and the costs of medicines required to keep him alive.

”As serious as his misconduct was deemed, it certainly didn’t warrant, essentially, a death sentence,” Steinback recalled. ”I would not say my advocacy caused the outcome, but a judge who understood the realities of that individual’s circumstances and was able to balance the competing considerations in a lenient way.”

But for the vast majority of the cases that come to Steinback, probation is not a likely outcome.

”I don’t envy what Jeff does, because you don’t walk away with happy customers,” said Marc W. Martin, a criminal defense lawyer who turns to Steinback when his clients are in need of plea negotiations or representation as cooperating witnesses in federal cases. ”He, very rarely, is going to have a case where the result is freedom.”

That reality of his practice can be a difficult one to swallow.

”I’m generally saddened when any client has to spend time in prison,” Steinback said from his 14th-floor office, where the window view features the nearby Metropolitan Correctional Center.

Sometimes, he said, ”The question is, will a person do 30 years or will he do 10? If your negotiations can make a difference, or your advice to your client can make a difference, then 10 years, which can be a terribly long sentence, is nonetheless one that has some light at the end of the tunnel, whereas, 30 years would be forever.

”If you walk away from a case with that outcome, you’ve given some hope and some life back to your client and his family,” he said, ”although, you can’t feel good about that outcome, because it’s still prison time, and substantial prison time.”

That said, Steinback offered a bit of advice to others who might be considering a similar route in the criminal defense arena.

”Do this work if you have a passion for it, if it gives you some satisfaction in helping people in this fashion,” Steinback said. ”If not, don’t get into this work. It is demanding, extraordinarily difficult, you are almost always trudging upstream, and no matter how, relatively speaking, how good the outcome, you always feel like you could have or should have done better.”

Those challenges that go hand-in-hand with his practice seem to give Steinback all the more reason to press on.

”All I can say is that, when it stops hurting and when what happens to my clients stops really making a difference to me … if I ever get to that point, that’s when it’s time to get out,” Steinback said. ”When you’re going through the motions, you’re just simply riding out your reputation, and you’re not really putting your heart and soul into it — that’s when you’re no longer really going to be as effective as you should be.”

Q&A: Lynn Murray

Lynn Murray

Age: 48

Family: She and her husband, Dan, have five children — John, Kate and Emma, all 14; and Pete, and Helen, both 9.

Education: She graduated from the University of Illinois in 1982, and the University of Illinois College of Law in 1985.

Professional: A partner and member of the executive committee at Grippo & Elden, her practice encompasses a wide variety of commercial litigation, with a special emphasis on intellectual property, insurance coverage, and antitrust disputes. She has also negotiated global settlements of multi-dealer litigation, and developed new distributor contracts.

1. Why did you become a lawyer?

I wish I could say that I had an altruistic motive, but it was probably more intellectual curiosity after college. And when I went into law school I just found it fascinating. I then decided to go into litigation because it had both intellectual stuff, and the psychology, and some elements of theater that were pretty interesting.

2. What is your last big case or big deal that you can talk about, and what did it entail?

I spent most of the summer in San Francisco on a bench trial on a case that had what many people would call very dry subject matter. It was a case about insurance policies of the 1940s and the 1950s, and, surprisingly, the case ended up with allegations of forgery and perjury and all sorts of interesting things. We’re still not quite done with it, but that’s where I spent a lot of my time over the summer.

I also had, in the spring, a pretty interesting experience. I argued an appeal in the Fourth Circuit and it turned out that Sandra Day O’Connor was sitting by designation on the appeal. And so the appeal went very well, but it was interesting to shake her hand because she’s been someone that I’ve watched and admired for many years.

In the Fourth Circuit they come down and shake your hand afterwards, and that was a cool thing.

3. What’s the strangest thing that’s happened to you as a lawyer?

Early in my career I was trying a patent case before a difficult — smart, but difficult — judge, and I was cross-examining the other side’s expert. And the other side’s expert was seeming very arrogant, and going into what I call his ”little lady” mode. I actually like that because it’s helpful in front of a jury. But the judge dismissed the jury, and gave this guy a big lecture on answering questions, called him arrogant, called him rude.

When we got back at the end of the night, we got the daily transcript, and in the middle of that whole discussion by the judge was the court reporter’s comment, ”It takes one to know one.” We called the court reporter and had her take that out. The judge is no longer on the bench. But that is probably the most unusual thing I can recall.

4. If you could have lunch with anyone, living or dead, who would it be and why?

Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.

You might have to lock the doors so that no one left the room, but it would be interesting. I think an exchange of their views on policy and women in positions of responsibility could be pretty engaging.

5. What advice do you have for new or future lawyers?

Most of the advice is the kind of advice you hear from a lot of people: work hard, try hard, think about things. As a litigator, what I’m often telling young associates is that you have to think not just about the project, but you have to think all the way down to the end. How is what you’re doing going to help you win the case? What do you think about your chances of winning the case? We encourage everybody at all levels to do that. And it’s surprising how often people don’t see their place in the whole picture. We encourage people to do that.

6. What’s your favorite book, movie, television show or play about lawyers, and why?

The classic ”To Kill a Mockingbird,” and mainly the reason I like it so much, in addition to its good and evil message, is it’s one that you can discuss with your children, and talk about those messages. The message of fighting for what you believe in even when it’s difficult.

7. What do you like the most and least about being a lawyer?

I really actually like the work. I find it tremendously interesting, and you get the opportunity to work with a huge number of smart people — both your colleagues and your clients, and even your opponents often, and your judges. This judge we had in San Francisco is a brilliant guy. The least, I probably fall right with the pack when I say the pressures of billing hours, and the need to bill many of them; to do your best work and have things run well is hard.

8. If you didn’t become a lawyer what career would you have chosen?

I think a psychologist, but I would probably be much better with the people who have solvable problems than the people who need long-term help with no end in sight. I like to see steps and progressions towards resolution. I’m not necessarily hugely patient if it doesn’t look like the problem can be solved.

9. What is your favorite childhood vacation?

We used to go to Lake of the Ozarks every year down in Missouri and we would just get a boat and we would go out and water-ski and fish all day long. It was a very relaxing get-away-from-it-all time for the whole family.

10. What is the most important news going on in the legal community today?

The two trends: the firm merger and the growth of the mega-firm have been interesting when you are in a smaller litigation practice. You see the conflict situation become just critical to those large firms. The volatility in corporate America is going to have a big impact on law firms. In a downturn, usually bankruptcy and litigation increase, and mergers and acquisitions go down. So many companies are combining that we may see something totally different.

— Interviewed by Olivia Clarke

Info Tech Law: Website ownership

By Alan S. Wernick
Wernick & Associates

Let’s discuss a hypothetical business case involving the ownership of a website: Your business paid thousands of dollars to a website developer to create your interactive e-commerce-enabled website. It looks great, but now you want to change some of it. You send out a request for proposal to several website developers.

The developer who created your present website gives you a quote that is almost as much as what you initially paid to have the entire website created, yet you only want to change a few of the pages he created. Another website developer provides a lower quote, and has suggested additional features you find attractive, so you decide to pay this new developer to make the changes.

Shortly after the new website changes are published on the Internet you receive a letter from the lawyer for the website developer who created your initial website claiming that you are infringing the copyrights of the initial website developer, and demanding that you remove the new website pages and pay damages for infringement.

There are a number of legal issues that flow from a business having an independent contractor do website development. Change a few of the facts (What if the business provides the website developer a portion of the content for the website?), and the outcome of the analysis will change. However, a failure to consider the issues could prove costly.

The United States Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for ownership of copyrightable works such as web pages. Under that act, copyright ownership of a work ”vests initially in the author or authors of the work.” 17 U.S.C. 201(a). Thus, the law starts with the premise that the website developer is the owner of the copyrights in the website he develops, even though the business owner paid the website developer to develop the website.

However, there are exceptions to the premise that the author is the owner of the copyrights. One exception arises if the work is a ”work made for hire.” 17 U.S.C. 201(b). A ”work made for hire.” comes in two flavors:

When the work is ”prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment” 17 U.S.C. 101(1); or when the independent contractor situation is one in which the work is specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, the work falls into one of the eight enumerated categories set forth in 17 U.S.C. 101(2), and the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Community for Creative Non-Violence, et al. v. James Earl Reid [CCNV], detailed the limits of ”work made for hire” under the U.S. Copyright Act. The Court held that the proper interpretation of Sec. 101(1) of the U.S. Copyright Act ”work made for hire” provision is a literal interpretation, applying agency law principles to determine whether an author is an employee or an independent contractor.

In determining whether or not a hired party is a Sec. 101(1) employee under the general common law of agency, the Supreme Court in CCNV sets forth some of the relevant factors:

• The hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished;
• the skill required;
• the source of the instrumentalities and tools;
• the location of the work;
• the duration of the relationship between the parties;
• whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired partyy;
• the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work;
• the method of payment;
• the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants;
• whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party;
• whether the hiring party is in business;
• the provision of employee benefits; and
• the tax treatment of the hired party.

The Court states that no one of these factors is determinative.

An unusual twist to the hypothetical scenario discussed above happened in the case of the State of New Mexico v. Richard G. Kirby (2007). In Kirby, the court examined a situation where a business owner hired a website designer, and once the website went live, the business owner did not pay the web designer and blocked the web designer’s access to the website.

The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the business owner was properly convicted of one count of criminal fraud for taking the website ”by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations.” In its analysis of the case, the court reviewed some of the law and cases surrounding the U.S. Copyright Act as it delved into the question of the ownership of the website developed by the website designer, and concluded that the website designer was indeed the owner of the copyrights.

Each case needs to be examined on its own facts. The bottom line is that with proper preparation and counsel you should know the answer to the question: Who owns your website?

©2008 Alan S. Wernick

All in the Family: Rewriting the divorce act

By Daniel R. Stefani
Katz & Stefani

It has been more than 30 years since the enactment of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. While there have been miscellaneous amendments to the act since then, the Illinois House of Representatives has decided that the act needs a complete review and overhaul. This is especially necessary since the typical American family unit has changed significantly since 1977.

As a result, House Resolution 1101, created by House Speaker Michael Madigan and State Representative John Fritchey, establishes the Illinois Family — Law Study Committee for the purpose of studying and recommending changes to the act.

The chairperson of the committee is my partner, P. Andre Katz. The goal of the committee is to submit its final report to the governor and the House of Representatives. To achieve this end, the committee requires input from the public, the legal community, professional organizations, and other institutions. This input will be considered by the committee, and discussed at three publicly convened meetings over the next few months, with the next meeting in November in Springfield. Meetings in Chicago and Waukegan will follow. I urge all lawyers to submit their comments, thoughts, and (in some cases) personal experiences to the committee at familylawcommittee@katz stefani.com.

This article is intended to raise awareness to this committee and these meetings, as well as raise some of the key issues to be dealt with at the committee level, and ultimately by the governor and the House of Representatives.

One of the key financial issues is how to equitably divide the responsibility between parents for the support and education of their minor children. Currently, child support is primarily determined by the court looking at the support payer’s net income and applying the statutory guidelines (20 percent of net income for one child, 28 percent for two children, 32 percent for three children, and gradually increasing to 50 percent of net income for six or more minor children).

The guidelines are applied unless the court makes a finding that the guidelines would be inappropriate, after considering other factors like the financial resources and needs of the child and the custodial parent; the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved; the physical and emotional condition of the child; the child’s educational needs; and the financial resources and needs of the non-custodial parent.

In a majority of cases, courts apply the guidelines with very little recognition of these other factors, including the financial resources and needs of the support payee. Many other states have kept up with the increase in dual-income families by instituting an income-sharing model that considers the payee spouse’s income dollar-for-dollar instead of being one general factor to consider.

The theory is that this model more equitably distributes both parents’ obligation to contribute to the support and education of the minor children. This approach seems to be the trend in other states, with the courts quantifying the net after-tax income from both spouses available to support the children and thereafter equitably dividing it through guidelines to maximize the benefit to the minor children.

Other issues are whether to amend the waiting period for no-fault divorce and the recognition of fault-based grounds for a divorce.

Illinois is a modified no-fault state because, in 1977, when no-fault divorce became law, public policy dictated that the parties had to live ‘’separate and apart” for at least two years to obtain a no-fault divorce, unless the parties agreed to waive it, in which case the requirement is still six months. While ‘’separate and apart” does not necessarily mean living in separate residences, this requirement still causes a potential delay in litigation. This requirement of six months living ‘’separate and apart” results in the litigants having to sometimes still use fault-based grounds like extreme and repeated mental cruelty, adultery, and the like. These fault-based grounds are archaic and sometimes cause the litigation to get side-tracked from issues relating to finances, where marital misconduct is irrelevant.

Should the act require the appointment by the court of a business valuation expert before allowing either party to hire their own? Valuation issues and custody issues are the most litigated issues in our area and this could create a more streamlined and efficient result.

While controversial, the committee will likely look at the issue of the definition of marriage. The act provides that a valid marriage in Illinois is a marriage between a man and a woman properly licensed and registered, and specifically states that a marriage between two individuals of the same sex is prohibited. There should be much debate on whether there should be a civil union law and whether the act would apply to dissolving civil unions as well. Additionally, there are no property rights derived from anyone who cohabits and is not married, regardless of sexual orientation. This is another issue to debate.

There are a myriad of issues to be debated at the committee level. Unlike other laws, much of the public has an interest in the result of the committee’s work since the divorce rate remains high in Illinois.

Firm Life

By Robert Yates

Clare Connor Ranalli, a partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson, has been elected to the Board of Directors of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys.

Paul W. Mollica, a partner at Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink, was inducted into the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers as a Fellow in September.

Duane Morris partner John Maher has been appointed general counsel of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, an independent agency that administers the 1.8 million-employee civil service. Maher was a member of the firm’s intellectual property practice in its Chicago office before his appointment.

Thomas A. Demetrio of Corboy & Demetrio recently dedicated the Corboy & Demetrio Continuing Legal Education Center at the Center for Disability and Elder Law. The new center will host presentations, classes, and seminars on issues affecting the disabled and elderly.

Sugar, Friedberg & Felsenthal has changed its name to Sugar & Felsenthal.

Pappas & Schnell (Rockford) has restructured following its merger with the Chicago firm of Hubbard & O’Connor. The new firm, which will concentrate on labor and employment law, will be known as Pappas, Hubbard, O’Connor, Fildes, Secaras.

Holland & Knight has opened an office in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal announced that Heinz Bloch and Robert Schlup, two of Europe’s most prominent hotel lawyers, have joined the law firm as partners in Zurich, Switzerland, where it is opening a new office.

Mayer Brown announced a global financial markets initiative to mobilize the firm’s resources to help clients deal with legal and business challenges resulting from the ongoing turbulence in worldwide financial markets. The initiative includes a website that collects in one location current information about the financial market crisis, a telephone hotline in London to facilitate response to inquiries from financial institutions, and the creation of a new group in Hong Kong to assist Asian clients with matters related to the financial turmoil.

Michael D. Sher, a partner at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, and David R. Barry, Jr., a partner at Corboy & Demetrio, have been elected Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law has named Karen Harris as the leader of its Community Investment Unit.

Scott C. Solberg, partner at Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg has been elected chair of the Legal Aid Society, which serves as the board of overseers for the Legal Aid Bureau of Metropolitan Family Services.

Gail H. Morse, a partner at Jenner & Block, received the Bella Abzug Woman of Honor Award from the Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women. The award was presented to Morse for her dedication to making the world a better place for women through her ”unusual breadth of feminist service,” including her work in raising the overall visibility of LGBT and diversity issues in the workplace.

Alexander Lourie, a partner at Barack Ferrazzano, has joined the board of La Rabida Children’s Hospital, where he will serve a three-year term.

Littler Mendelson announced its participation in Ius Laboris, a global alliance of law firms that prove employment and labor law services on an international scale. Effective Oct. 1, Littler joins the alliance of more than 2,500 attorneys providing specialized legal expertise across a portfolio of employment, labor, pensions and employee benefits law. Littler is the only law firm in the United States participating in Ius Laboris’ alliance.

Ropes & Gray has moved its office to 111 S. Wacker Dr., 46th floor.

Franczek Sullivan has changed its name to Franczek Radelet & Rose, including as name partners David P. Radelet and Charles P. Rose, who, along with James C. Franczek, Jr., were among the co-founders of the firm.

Partners

Gordon & Rees has elected two Chicago partners to national partner: Ryan T. Brown, insurance, commercial litigation, and employment; and Michael P. Tone, professional liability defense, and commercial litigation.

Kirkland & Ellis has promoted several attorneys to partner: Kristen J. Allen, intellectual property; Stephanie A. Brennan, litigation; William Robert Burke, corporate; Anthony J. Casey, litigation; Aaron D. Charfoos, intellectual property; Jeffrey W. Gettleman, restructuring; Adam J. Gill, intellectual property; Warren R. Goodworth, private funds; Eric T. Gortner, litigation; David E. Grassmick, litigation; Jared E. Hedman, intellectual property; Benjamin W. Hulse, litigation; Jeffrey B. Kaplan, corporate; Michelle Kilkenney, corporate; Ross M. Kwasteniet, restructuring; Stephanie S. Liang, corporate; Matthew S. Lovell, intellectual property; Thomas M. Monagan III, intellectual property; Kevin L. Morris, corporate; Caroline A. Paranikas, corporate; Amy R. Peters, corporate; Theodore A. Peto, corporate; John W. Reale, litigation; Neal J. Reenan, corporate; Roger D. Rhoten, corporate; Sara A. Robinson, corporate; Jessica H. Sicsu, corporate; Coree Smith, real estate; William Cory Spence, intellectual property; Bernard Taylor, litigation; and Erica B. Zolner, litigation.

Moves

To Much Shelist: principals William R. Quinlan, James R. Carroll, Michael T. Beirne, and Martin J. O’Hara; and associate Shawn M. Staples; all in complex litigation and all from Quinlan & Carroll; and principal James M. Kunick, intellectual property, from McCracken & Frank.

To Polsinelli, Shalton, Flanigan, Suelthaus: shareholders Charles P. Sheets, government regulation and litigation for health care providers; Matthew J. Murer, senior housing, assisted living, and skilled nursing; and Jason T. Lundy, long-term care and senior housing; all from Foley & Lardner.

To McGuireWoods: new associate Lara A. Duda, health care.

To Husch, Blackwell, Sanders, Welsh & Katz: associate Yolanda M. King, business services, from the City of Chicago’s Department of Law.

To Constangy, Brooks & Smith: partner Charles W. Pautsch, labor relations, from Wessels, Sherman.

To Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick & Pearson: partner Erika Dillon, labor and employment, from Sara Lee Corp., where she was deputy chief counsel.

To Quarles & Brady: new associate Krupa Shah, tax.

To Reed Smith: partner Diane Green-Kelly, regulatory litigation; and counsel Stanley C. Nardoni, insurance recovery, both from Mayer Brown.

To Stahl Cowen: partner Shelly A. DeRousse, bankruptcy and restructuring, from Sugar Friedberg & Felsenthal; and associate Josh S. Kaplan, entertainment and media and business organizations, from Levin Ginsburg.

To Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione: new associates Robyn M. Bowland, Ryan M. Gleitz, Jung-Whan Kim, Patricia Leahu, Abby L. Lemek, Aaron A. Mitchell, E. Brandon Nykiel, Joseph M. Pletcher, and Virginia Wolk.

To Bryan Cave: counsel Jennifer W. Russell, products liability and commercial litigation, from Boeing Company, where she was director of insurance litigation and claims.

To Wildman Harrold: partner R. Rene Friedman, regulatory response and complex litigation, from Sidley Austin.

To Greenberg Traurig: counsel Michael G. Rogers, tax, from Sidley Austin.

To Ropes & Gray: counsel Christopher T. Shannon, private equity, from Kirkland & Ellis.

To SmithAmundsen: partner Bruce E. de’ Medici, bankruptcy and creditors’ rights, from Mendell Menkes & Surdyk.

To Cozen O’Connor: partner Jeffrey Weil, commercial litigation, from Dechert.

To Scandaglia & Ryan: associate Sara Youn, complex litigation, from the Seattle office of Perkins Coie.

To Dykema: counsel Sonya Olds Som, employment law, from Laner Muchin.

To The Law Offices of Dean S. Dussias: associates Michelle A. Miller, family law, from Grund & Leavitt; and new associate Christine M. Kipta, family law.

To Baker & Daniels: associate James J. Saul, intellectual property, from Schuyler Roche.

To Leydig, Voit & Mayer: new associates Emer L. Simic, litigation of pharmaceutical patents, and Christopher K. Leach, patent prosecution and litigation in the chemical arts.

To Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan: partner C. Willis Ritter, public finance, from Ungaretti & Harris (Washington, D.C.).

Changes

James J. Kreminski, associate dean for administration at The John Marshall Law School, died on Sept. 23, at age 60.

Around the water cooler: Raising awareness about a human rights violation

Jenner & Block recently held an event at its Chicago office addressing the international problem of human trafficking of women and girls.

Save Our Sisters, the Jenner & Block Women’s Forum, LexisNexis, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers sponsored the event.

Jenner & Block associate Martina E. Vandenberg was a featured speaker at the program, and addressed the issue of trafficking in the United States and the efforts to provide legal remedies for survivors.

She has an active pro bono practice, representing victims of human trafficking and providing legal advice to institutions seeking to combat this human rights violation.  She has spoken nationally and internationally on trafficking and has testified on the subject before congressional committees.

Jane Tafel, executive director of Hagar U.S.A, was also a featured speaker and discussed her organization’s commitment to the recovery and empowerment of victims of human rights abuses in Cambodia.

Save Our Sisters is a coalition of women lawyers from the Arab American Bar Association of Illinois, Asian American Bar Association, Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, Inc., CBA Young Lawyers Section, CBA Alliance for Women, Chicago Committee on Minorities in Large Law Firms, Women’s Bar Association of Illinois, and the ISBA Women and the Law Committee, who are concerned about the plight of women in Darfur and violence against women worldwide.

Vandenberg, a former women’s rights researcher with Human Rights Watch, said the purpose of the event for her was to bring awareness to the gruesome human rights violations, shatter some myths about human trafficking, and also educate lawyers so that they take on pro bono projects involving these violations. She also wanted to inform people that trafficking also occurs here in Chicago.

“Lawyers can bring civil suits on behalf of the victims and win back some of their dignity, not to mention some of the money stolen from the victims of trafficking here in the United States,” she said.

“I’ve spent years interviewing trafficking victims, and analyzing the factors that make trafficking possible, like corruption. When I left Human Rights Watch and jumped into the private sector I didn’t dream I could continue working with trafficking. … Through Jenner I’ve been able to work with a number of these cases with other lawyers in the firm. The cases themselves are very resource-intensive and the trafficking victims certainly cannot afford legal representation. I’ve done five [cases at the firm]. There are other cases that other lawyers are doing at the firm.”

Workshop: Boots on the Ground: Equipping Attorneys to Sell and Deliver on ROI from Strategic Marketing Investments

Title: Workshop: Boots on the Ground: Equipping Attorneys to Sell and Deliver on ROI from Strategic Marketing Investments
Location: Program and lunch Union League Club of Chicago, 65 W Jackson Blvd
Description: Sponsor: Legal Marketing Association Chicago
$35 member; $55 non-member
Info: Sydney Iglitzen at 312-840-3163

Start Time: 11:30
Date: 2008-11-20
End Time: 13:30

« Previous Page — Next Page »