<![CDATA[
<a href="index.html">Home</a><br>
<a href="over.html">Overture</a><br>
<a href="who/home.html">Who We Are</a><br>
<a href="what/home2.html">What We Do</a><br>
<a href="ourwork/home2.html">Our Work</a><br>
<a href="intelligence/home.html">Intelligence</a><br>
<a href="forlawyers/home.html">For Lawyers Only</a><br>
<a href="jobs.html">Jobs With The Patterson Law Firm</a><br>
<a href="contact/contact.html">Contact Us</a><br>
<br>
<table align="left" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="450">
<tr>
<td valign="top" WIDTH=50> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right" valign="top"> <font size="2"><A href="mailto:tep@pattersonlawfirm.com"><b>?</b></a></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50" class="side" valign="top"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> <a name="case"></a>
<h5>Judge for yourself whether you should consult with us. Review these
eight interesting cases (followed by notable appeals):</h5>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="center" width=50> </td>
<td colspan="2"> <a name="1"></a><b>1. Guarantor escapes paying $8 million.</b>
Three months before the scheduled trial, a New York law firm asked my partner
and me to represent a guarantor sued for $8 million arising out of the largest
mixed-use real estate development project in the world: "the case was an
unmitigated disaster and they needed us to mitigate it."<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td> The almost identical case had already been lost by another firm, but
a procedural technicality permitted the second case to proceed as if the
first one had never occurred. Because of the other firm's prior loss, we
offered $3.5 million to settle. Our offer was refused.</td>
<td align="middle">
<table width="100">
<tr>
<td>
<div class="box"> <b>"[T]he case was an unmitigated disaster and they
needed us to mitigate it."</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td colspan=2> We went to trial arguing that the bank was guilty of bad faith
for refusing to approve leases and improperly declaring a default. The bank
offered evidence of more than $1 million in attorney fees incurred. After
my cross-examination, however, this evidence was stricken by the Judge.
The jury then found that our client was not liable to pay anything. Compare
<span class="case">Chemical Bank v. Paul,</span> 244 Ill.App.3d 772, 614
N.E.2d 436 (1st Dist. 1993), with <span class="case">Chemical Bank v. American
National Bank,</span> 180 Ill.App. 3d 219, 535 N.E.2d 940, 944 (1st Dist.
1989). </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50">
<td> <img src="../images/chart2.gif" width="275" height="160" border="0" alt=""><br>
<center>
1983-1984
</center>
</td>
<td>
<table width="150">
<tr>
<td>
<div class="box"> <b>Left.</b> Exhibit 64 from the Chemical Bank case.
We wanted to show that the unpaid interest was less when the bank
declared a default (point C) than it was when the bank wrote a letter
stating that the loan was in good standing (point A). Substantial
interest arrearage also existed when it again agreed in writing
that the loan was not in default (point B).</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" height="20"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50" valign="center"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> <a name="2"></a><b>2. The magic of new technology.</b> A
small company can effectively litigate against a larger opponent–if it fights
smart. Two years ago, a large insurance company–a subsidiary of one of the
largest insurance conglomerates in the world–sued a brokerage company with
12 employees for $3.5 million. It claimed that our client, the brokerage
company, had failed to enact rate increases for a force-placed insurance
program for sub-prime automobile loans. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td> <br>
We computerized the whole case. We reviewed and processed approximately
100 boxes of documents produced, marking almost 2,000 documents as exhibits.
Several of the many depositions lasted three or four days. The entire case
file–exhibits, document indices, and deposition transcripts--was on a laptop
computer. We could work on the case at home, on the train, or while sitting
in a doctor's office.</td>
<td align="center">
<table width="100">
<tr>
<td>
<div class="box"> <b>"A small company can effectively litigate against
a larger opponent–if it fights smart."</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td colspan=2> <br>
The case was staffed with one lawyer (Mr. Patterson) and two paralegals.
Five years ago, three lawyers plus the paralegals would have been required.<br>
<br>
The case settled shortly after we filed a motion for summary judgment. The
insurance company requested that the terms of the settlement be kept confidential.<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" height="20"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> <a name="3"></a><b>3. Corporate coup d'etat.</b> When a President
of a company walked into the office for the first time, worry was etched
into his face. Locked out and voted out of his office, a hearing was scheduled
in a few days on whether he had violated a court order to return company
equipment and to keep out of its premises. A prior attorney lacked the experience
to take his case–and he needed help fast. The State's Attorney anticipated
pressing criminal charges (and attended the hearing).<br>
<br>
In a series of contested hearings, we defeated the motion to find him in
contempt of court and then won back his company. Since that time we have
drafted and negotiated his many agreements. Among them: licensing, shareholder,
employment, and consulting contracts. So we first solved his legal problem
and then helped him reduce future risks–a classic case of our holistic approach
to business legal services. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" height="20"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td> <a name="4"></a><b>4 When real estate partners collide.</b> When a general
partner in a real estate partnership sought our help, the limited partners
had already obtained a restraining order against it–to temporarily stop
it from selling partnership condominiums to raise the funds to pay $2.5
million in partnership debts, some of which were owed to the general partner.
The limited partners then sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the
sale of the condominiums, arguing that the agreement and the law forbade
the sales and that the sales were irregular.</td>
<td align="center">
<table width="150">
<tr>
<td>
<div class="box"> <b>"The limited partners then sought a preliminary
injunction to stop the sale of partnership condominiums ...." </b></div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td colspan=2> <br>
After we prepared a thorough analysis of the partnership contract, the Illinois
Partnership Act, and a full explanation of the transactions from the relevant
witnesses during three days of trial, the Court refused to prohibit the
sales. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" height="20"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td colspan=2> <a name="5"><b>5. Confronting the government.</b> At the height
of the so-called banking crisis, the federal government accused several
bank officials and directors of making improper loans and other misdeeds.
My clients–in one case a bank president, in others ordinary citizen directors--had
never faced the terrifying might of the federal government. In each case,
we were able to fight the government to a standstill and settle for nominal
amounts. Very satisfying.</a> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" height="20"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td colspan=2> <a name="6"></a><b>6. Litigating ourselves out of a job.</b>
For several years we helped represent the Accreditation Council for Graduate
Medical Education (ACGME) in cases filed in a variety of courts across the
country–successfully enough that no one sues them anymore.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td> <br>
One program argued that if the court refused to continue its accreditation
on an emergency basis, it would suffer irreparable harm because it would
be unable to recruit qualified residents through the national Match program.
From working all night on our research and briefs, we knew that the program
had been in trouble before, but had recruited four doctors without the Match.
After a long series of questions to "set the trap," we asked these questions:</td>
<td align="center" valign="bottom">
<table width="150">
<tr>
<td>
<div class="box"> <b>"For several years we helped represent the ...
ACGME in cases filed ... across the country–successfully enough
that no one sues them anymore."</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td colspan=2> <br>
Q: And it's your contention that irreparable harm would befall the program
if you were not able to recruit persons with the aid of the Matching materials
which only go for accredited residency programs, am I correct on that?<br>
A: Yes, it is.<br>
<br>
Q: But you're nevertheless extremely proud of Dr. M___, Dr. B__, Dr. N___,
and Dr. B___, isn't that correct?<br>
A: That's right.<br>
<br>
Q: And you said they were all fine surgeons, right?<br>
A: Yes, I did.<br>
<br>
Q: And isn't it correct that none of them were obtained through the Match?<br>
A: That was – that was during the period of time – that is correct –<br>
<br>
Q: Thank you. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" height="20"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td> <a name="7"></a><b>7. Amazing refusal to settle requires trial of foreclosure
case.</b> In 1997, we represented a real estate seller who had taken back
a mortgage. The mortgage required monthly payments and a balloon payment
of more than $300,000 in 2002. The buyer refused to pay certain sums due
and owing on the mortgage, claiming that the seller owed him funds relating
to the closing. Indeed, the seller did owe the buyer some money from the
closing.</td>
<td>
<table width="150">
<tr>
<td>
<div class="box"> <b>"Did the ego of the buyer or the buyer's lawyer
get in the way?"</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> <br>
We held several meetings to try to negotiate a settlement. The judge tried
to mediate a settlement. Did the ego of the buyer or the buyer's lawyer
get in the way? It is impossible to say. The net amount the buyer owed us
was less than $10,000 more than what we owed him at the critical time period.
But we had to go to trial. We won. The amount due was therefore accelerated
per the agreement, and the buyer was forced to make the $300,000 balloon
payment to us within 90 days after the trial–and to pay our legal fees.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="2"><b><a name="8"></a>8. The case that nobody wanted.</b> Most
frequently, we represent businesses, professionals, and entrepreneurs in
business lawsuits, but a lawyer friend asked us to help a family whose law
firm was dropping their wrongful death case. The family's existing law firm
doubted that it could prove the case because of its peculiar facts and had
decided to withdraw, leaving the family without a lawyer. We examined the
file and disagreed with the prior lawyer. After two years of hard work in
court, we obtained $1.5 million for the family in a settlement.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50" valign="top" class="side"> </td>
<td> <a name="app"></a>
<h5>Notable Appeals</h5>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td colspan=2> Moses' father-in-law first suggested a hierarchy of courts
(See Exodus 18:13-26) and cases today are not always won or lost at the
trial level. Out of more than 22 appeals that Mr. Patterson has handled,
some in conjunction with other attorneys, here are some notable decisions:</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50"> </td>
<td colspan=2> <br>
<ul>
<li type="square"><b>In re: Marriage of Bennett,</b> 131 Ill.App.3d 1050,
476 N.E.2d 1297 (2d Dist. 1985): modification of fee agreements to attorney's
advantage is presumptively fraudulent. The case was featured in the
<em>Chicago Tribune's</em> "On the Law" column on May 7, 1985. <br>
<br>
<li><b>Chemical Bank v. Paul,</b> 244 Ill.App. 3d 772, 614 N.E. 2d 436
(1st Dist. 1993): one of the leading cases on the obligation of good
faith in commercial dealings. <br>
<br>
<li type="square"><b>Franklin v. FMC Corp.,</b> 150 Ill.App.3d 343, 501
N.E.2d 887 (1st Dist. 1986): one of the leading cases on the intra state
forum non conveniens doctrine (permits cases to be transferred between
counties). <br>
<br>
<li type="square"><b>Heinrich v. Peabody,</b> 117 Ill.2d 162, 510 N.E.
2d 889 (1987), which Mr. Patterson argued twice in the Illinois Supreme
Court, is the definitive case on the pleading requirements for deciding
who is responsible for the actions of an employee loaned by one company
to another (loaned servant doctrine). <br>
<br>
<li type="square"><b>Interfaith Medical Center v.Sabiston,</b> 527 N.Y.S.
2d 48, 136 A.D. 2d 238 (NY AD 1988): one of the leading cases in the
nation on a private association's right to enforce its own rules. <br>
<br>
<li type="square"><b> McKenzie v. Romeiser,</b> 205 Ill.App. 3d 830, 563
N.E.2d 837 (1990): in a case briefed and argued by Mr. Patterson, Justice
Jiganti stated: "Both counsel on appeal were especially good lawyers."
<br>
<br>
<li type="square"><b>Stofer v. First National Bank of Effingham,</b> 212
Ill.App.3d 530, 571 N.E.2d 157 (5th Dist. 1991): doctrines of interference
with contractual relations and duress.</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td valign="top">
<ul>
<li type="square"><b>Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America,</b> 993 F.2d 126
(7th Cir. 1993): the boy scouts could exclude atheists. The Chicago
Tribune (June 19, 1991), Wall Street Journal (March 16, 1992), and Chicago
Sun-Times (March 14, 1992) all covered this case. I was quoted in my
firm's newsletter: "We represented God and won."</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<table width="150">
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<div class="box"> <b>"We represented God and won."</b></div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" align="right" class="copy"> © 2001, Thomas E. Patterson </td>
</tr>
</table>
]]>