Handling high-stakes appellate litigation in courts across the country.

Appellate advocacy is not merely another phase of litigation. It is an entirely new challenge—the outcome of which frequently produces rules of law that can transcend the parties’ dispute and impact an entire industry. Appellate input—before the trial court’s judgment is handed down—is often the key to success. That is why the appellate attorneys of Hinshaw are an integral part of the firm’s litigation practice.

Decades of Experience

For nearly six decades, Hinshaw’s appellate lawyers have been representing businesses and individuals at all levels of state and federal reviewing courts throughout the country. Hinshaw’s appellate attorneys have written briefs and argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals in 12 circuits, as well as the reviewing courts of more than a dozen states.
Over the years, Hinshaw appellate attorneys have participated in a significant number of landmark decisions and successfully appealed several multi-million dollar cases. Hinshaw’s Appellate Team handles new appeals that arise from the firm’s trial practice, along with many referrals from other law firms or direct engagements by clients who recognize the importance of involving highly-experienced appellate counsel, whether they won or lost in the trial court.

A significant number of our appellate victories have been precedent-setting decisions. Many others provided favorable, cost-effective outcomes at the trial level for clients through sound advice, critical dispositive motions, tactical use of interlocutory appeals, and the ability to gain leverage through carefully executed post-judgment strategies.

A Proactive Partner

In addition to crafting appellate briefs and presenting oral arguments, appellate attorneys at Hinshaw have deep experience in the following areas:

• Preparing and arguing case-dispositive motions, both pre- and post-trial
• Drafting and arguing motions in limine, jury instructions, and motions for judgment as a matter of law
• Taking interlocutory appeals related to discovery orders, immunity defenses, class certifications, and venue
• Securing extraordinary relief through mandamus and supervisory orders
• Staying the enforcement of judgments
• Providing tactical and strategic recommendations and support to set up or head off an appeal
• Handling appellate mediations
• Responding quickly to short-fuse projects such as appeals from temporary restraining orders and injunctions

National Recognition

Hinshaw attorneys have received widespread recognition over the years for their appellate skills. U.S. News & World Report “Best Law Firms” has ranked Hinshaw’s Appellate practice as a National Tier One firm every year since 2011. That recognition of our ability—and the value it brings to clients— is shared by attorneys outside our firm who frequently recommend us to advocate for their clients when the battle lines have shifted from the trial level to the reviewing court.

One of our partners is also a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers (AAAL). Membership in AAAL is limited to the 500 experienced appellate advocates in the nation who have demonstrated the highest skill level and integrity, according to the AAAL.

As a result of the widespread recognition of our appellate skills, special interest groups and trade associations call upon us to prepare amicus curiae briefs in various reviewing courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Our appellate attorneys also regularly provide pro bono services to the indigent in federal criminal appeals.

News

• Prepared an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Association of Public Health Laboratories, an internationally recognized leader in laboratory science and practice. The amicus brief presented APHL’s position on, and the science affected by, the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to a public health department’s use of residual dried bloodspot (DBS) screening specimens to detect heritable disorders in newborns and children. The court dismissed the complaint at issue. Kanuszewski v. Michigan Dept. of Health & Human Services, No. 18-cv-10472, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
• Successfully secured dismissal of a multi-million dollar insurance subrogation claim brought against a Taiwanese insurance company because the insurer was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin court. Lexington Insurance Co. v. Zurich Insurance (Taiwan) Ltd., 286 F. Supp. 3d 982 (W.D. Wis. 2017). The Seventh Circuit affirmed that dismissal, holding that “Neither the presence of an additional insured in Wisconsin, nor a worldwide territory of coverage provision under insurance policy could be considered purposeful contacts with the State of Wisconsin sufficient to subject Taiwanese insurer to personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin courts. Lexington Insurance Co. v. Hotai Insurance Co., 938 F.3d 874 (7^th 2019)
• Successfully obtained reversal of appellate court decision that permitted a worker to maintain a common law wrongful death action for unlimited damages against his employer if the time had expired to seek limited statutory damages from the employer for latent occupational diseases. Folta v. Ferro Engineering, 2015 IL 118070
• In a case whose outcome created a circuit split between the Seventh and Third Circuits, the court of appeals sustained the employer’s position that the union’s demand for payment of certain union officials’ salaries under terms of CBA was illegal under section 302(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, vacating contrary decisions by the district court and arbitrator. Titan Tire Corp. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, 734 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2013)
• Affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging that a religious order aided and abetted the World War II Yugoslav regime‘s plundering and banditry more than sixty years before the lawsuit was filed. The court of appeals determined that subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute was lacking because the plaintiffs’ claims that the defendant aided and abetted the Nazi puppet regime’s war crimes did not involve violations of the law of nations and because the plaintiffs’ human rights claims presented non-justiciable political questions. The court also concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because the complaint included both foreign plaintiffs and a foreign defendant. Alperin v. Franciscan Order, 423 Fed. Appx. 678 (9th Cir. 2011)
• Successfully secured reversal of a bankruptcy court order sanctioning a creditor and her attorneys for violating the bankruptcy discharge injunction. The district court reversed the sanction, holding that the creditor and her attorneys did not violate the discharge injunction by seeking an order from the Washington probate court ratifying the assignment of a probate judgment to the creditor. In re Taylor, 526 B.R. 719 (N.D. Ill. 2014). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the creditor and her attorneys had sought the ratification order as support for an anticipated Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the dismissal of their adversary claim in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Seventh Circuit held that gathering evidence to support a Rule 60(b) motion, in order to argue that a debt is not dischargeable, is not the same as taking action to collect on the debt and therefore did not violate the discharge injunction. The court further held that a purported settlement between an insurance carrier and the debtor did not render the appeal moot as neither the creditor nor her attorneys consented to the settlement. In re Taylor, 793 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2015)