The 2026 edition of Best Lawyers' "Best Law Firms" Directory has been published, with Hinshaw picking up 13 national and 56 metropolitan rankings in the guide.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner April Toy has been recognized among “Wisconsin’s 31 Most Influential Latino Leaders of 2025” by Madison365.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that BTI Consulting has ranked the firm as a “Leader in Litigation” in its BTI Litigation Outlook 2026 client survey.

Read David Schultz’s AccountsRecovery.net ARM Compliance Digest column analyzing a New Jersey Appellate Division decision holding that using a letter vendor to print and mail collection notices does not violate the FDCPA.

Read Hinshaw partner Carol Rooney’s co-authored ABA TIPS Law Journal survey of key appellate developments from the Supreme Court’s 2023 Term—offering practical takeaways for trial and appellate practitioners.

Read Hinshaw partner Carol Rooney's recently authored article in The Brief discussing the membership benefits of serving in the Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section (TIPS) Appellate Advocacy Committee of the American Bar Association (ABA).

Catherine Weiler, a Chicago-based partner and president of the Appellate Lawyers Association (ALA), will deliver the opening remarks at the 2025 edition of ALA’s annual roundtable luncheon with the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court.

Chicago-based partner Catherine Basque Weiler will moderate the virtual seminar "United States Supreme Court Year In Review," hosted by the Appellate Lawyers Association (ALA) and DuPage County Bar Association (DCBA) on September 26, 2024. The seminar will examine recent significant United States Supreme Court opinions and provide key insights for appellate practice.

Hinshaw Appellate Practice attorney Gretchen Harris Sperry will be featured speaker at the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education's (IICLE's) Civil Appellate Practice Institute, which runs from 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. (CT) on Thursday, November 5, 2015. Mr. Hardy will present from 10:50–11:15 a.m. on "Interlocutory Appeals," and Ms. Sperry will present from 11:40 a.m.–12:05 p.m. on "Motion Practice."

A recent Illinois appellate court decision could provide a roadmap for plaintiffs to sue employers over a workplace attack by a coworker. Read our analysis and key risk management takeaways in our new blog post.

On June 22, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC and held that, primarily for stare decisis reasons, it would not overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964), which had prohibited post-patent expiration royalties for use of formerly patented inventions. While not endorsing the economics underpinning Brulotte, the Court viewed Congress as the appropriate audience to resolve any complaints.

On November 29, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court accepted the petition for leave to appeal in Crittenden v. Cook County Commission on Human Rights. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Cook County Commission on Human Rights, alleging that her employer had sexually assaulted her in violation of the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance. The Commission awarded plaintiff compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. The appellate court reversed the award of punitive damages, holding that the Commission was not authorized under the ordinance to award punitive damages because the ordinance does not expressly authorize the award of such damages.Download to read the appellate court’s decision in Crittenden v. Cook County Commission on Human Rights, 2012 IL App (1st) 112437.Download PDF

On September 26, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court accepted the petition for leave to appeal in Standard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lay. The insured real estate agency sent more than 3,400 unsolicited faxes, resulting in it being named as a defendant in a class action. The agency settled the lawsuit and assigned to the plaintiff class its rights to payment from the agency’s insurer.

Download or read the complete newsletter here: Medical Litigation Newsletter - June 2013

Download or read the complete newsletter here: Medical Litigation Newsletter - April 2011

No “Cat’s Paw” Claim Where Supervisor Was Terminated for Violating Policy A supervisor helped an injured employee obtain from the company nurse a work restriction that limited the number of hours the employee could work. However, the supervisor required the employee to work more hours than the restriction allowed. The supervisor alleged that at an intermediate-supervisor’s direction he denied the employee the breaks that the employee was entitled to. The employer discovered that the supervisor had failed to honor the injured employee’s restriction and terminated the supervisor. The supervisor in turn sued under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, claiming that he was retaliated against for seeking accommodation for the disabled subordinate employee. Using the “cat’s paw” theory, the supervisor argued that the intermediate-supervisor, who lacked decision-making power, used a manager as a dupe in a deliberate scheme to get the manager to fire him. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected the employee’s claim because the intermediate-supervisor neither reported the supervisor’s violation of the work restriction to the manager nor recommended that the supervisor be disciplined. Nor did the manager rely on anything from the intermediate-supervisor in deciding to fire the supervisor. Instead, the manager fired the supervisor because he had admitted violating company policy by forcing the employee to work in violation of his restriction. This case is significant because of the Court’s recognition that the supervisor was required but failed to prove that the manager’s decision was actually influenced by the intermediate-supervisor. Employers must ensure that decision-makers do not make employment decisions based on their own desire, or the desire of a subordinate, to retaliate against an employee for engaging in any kind of protected activity. Diaz v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Case No. 10-1472 (8th Cir. Jun. 28, 2011)For more information, please contact your regular Hinshaw attorney.

Plaintiff, JBS Carriers, Inc. (“JBS”), sued Chamblee Ryan, P.C. (the “defendant”) for legal malpractice related to JBS’ alleged lost opportunity to settle the underlying personal injury case in which the defendant had been representing JBS.

The First District Appellate Court in Illinois held that the trial court (Judge Patrick J. Sherlock) was correct in entering a default judgment against an attorney in a legal malpractice action after the attorney repeatedly fabricated his expert witness disclosures "from whole cloth."

A Colorado Appellate Court upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a legal malpractice action related to an underlying shareholder dispute. The plaintiff was unable to prove that the defendants' negligence in not timely disclosing a valuation expert was the "but for" cause of the plaintiff's damages from an inadequate settlement of the underlying case.

Lateral Movement – Another Take on the Unfinished Business Rule

Unauthorized Practice of Law — Federal Practice — Disclosure Obligations When Lawyers Practice in States Where They are Not Admitted

Personal Interest Conflicts—Investment in Clients or Their Transactions— Malpractice Insurance Coverage—Policy Exclusions

Download or read the complete newsletter here: Medical Litigation Newsletter - December 2013

Download or read the complete newsletter here: Medical Litigation Newsletter - August 2013

Download the hardcopy newsletter: The Report Card - February 2013