Matt Miller Law

Case closed

Matt — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:49:23 +0000

July 19, 2011: Today, with the assistance of a Judge for the Circuit Court of Cook County, we successfully negotiated a favorable settlement for a client in a medical malpractice case. After diligently pursuing the case, and after Matt Miller deposed the defendant, we were able to settle the case early, without the need for experts. Bottom line: an excellent and expeditious result for our client.

Welcome to Origin LLC

Matt — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:14:42 +0000

June 28, 2011: Origin LLC has retained Matt Miller to represent it in a significant commercial dispute. Based in Burbank, California, Origin is a dynamic, full-service visual merchandising and point-of-purchase display company. It is a a privilege to represent companies like Origin and we welcome them to our professional family.

Affirmed: MediaBank prevails.

Matt — Tue, 31 May 2011 17:28:33 +0000

May 31, 2011: Our client, MediaBank, an industry-leading company that provides complex software for clients in the advertising world, received notice today that the trial court’s decision in its favor has been affirmed. The company had been sued by a former employee for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Practices Act. The company retained Matt Miller after the case had been filed, and Matt steered the case toward summary judgment. We filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, and we defeated a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff then asked for reconsideration, which we also defeated. After exhausting all options in the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Matt handled the briefs and oral argument, and the Seventh Circuit agreed with our case and affirmed the ruling on MediaBank’s favor. This is a terrific result for our client that not only results in a victory in this case, but that also provides a solid precedent and business clarity for future guidance. The client made the right choice by defending the case, and we are pleased to have been able to guide them to this result.

MediaBank has been and remains at the forefront of the move to electronic media procurement and management, offering leading-edge industry tools that streamline purchasing and allow for advanced analytics. We are proud to be able to represent them.

Is the legal system broken?

Matt — Sat, 28 May 2011 12:49:20 +0000

May 28, 2011: I receive calls every single day from people with significant legal problems: contracts breached, goods not delivered, faulty products, a deceitful partner. People suffer losses in the tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dolalrs. Significant losses. Yet the legal system is not set up to help them. It is too expensive. Unless your case is in or near the millions of dollars, rarely does it make economic sense to pursue or defend your case, no matter the merits. Isee cases settle that should be defended. I see cases unpursued that should be filed. I am not talking here about contingency cases. I am talking business cases. Commercial litigation. Private, civil disputes. People talk about tort reform (a topic that I can talk about at length), but no one ever wants to talk about commercial litigation and that is a field full of litigation abuse. Well, abuse might be the wrong word. Is it exploitation? Is it gamesmanship? Business (the same businesses that rail against torts) file abusive cases all the time, often for business tactical reasons, knowing they likely will settle out or smother their smaller opponents. I think therhe is more abuse–or shall we say misuse of the process-by business litigants than in any other area. Discovery–the process of gathering information–has overtaken advocacy. Motions are far more common than actual trials. Judges are no longer judges but refer to themselves as case managers. Lawyers hold themselves out as discovery experts or, worse, ESI experts–electronically stored information. The search for ESI rarely has anything to do with a case and usually is about tactics, expense and the hope to bury the other side in paperwork, time and expense. Rare is the case when a lawyer needs to sift through hundreds of thousands of emails, or even millions of those electronic buggers, and rare is the case when any benefit is gained by requiring corporations to shut down their backup systems and servers to supposedly “preserve” evidence. Let’s be honest. These tactics are deployed to beat an opponent in submission and it makes it very difficult if not impossible for many people and companies to actually turn to our legal system for help. This is frustrating to me and, I am sure, frustrating for would be clients. Is the legal system broken? Yes, it is. And until the rest of the bench and the bar can admit that, the breaks will only get bigger, and the lack of trust and respect for what we do will only continue to grow. Over the next few weeks I plan to post some thoughts on what might be done to fix some of the problems, and much of the focus will be on lawyers. I think the lawyers (and judges) are to blame for much of the problem. The profession has stopped being about advocacy, trials, and juries, and started to become about billable hours, pre-trial machinations and postures for settlement. This is not a new thing. This has been happening ever since I started practicing in 1996, but it is at a point now where the system is hardly recognizable. I long for the days before my time, when lawyers were lawyers, cases were tried, people won and lost and the system worked. While we can’t throw ourselves in a time machine and go back to a better era, we can look at what we have become, see and admit our shortcomings and change course. It is never too late. If not now, when. Stay tuned.

FocusScope retains Matt Miller

Matt — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:47:34 +0000

April 7, 2011: We are pleased to welcome FocusScope to our family of clients. FocusScope is a market research firm with three offices in the Chicago area. They are a family-owned business that has been an integral part of the research community in Chicago since 1980. We are honored to work with such fine clients.

Who is enforcing the rules?

Matt — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:37:12 +0000

February 23, 2011: Courts set schedules and deadlines every day. The Illinois Supreme Court Rules prescribe deadlines. Yet despite the court orders and Supreme Court Rules, it seems that all too often these “dates” are guideposts at best. I do not think I am alone when I speak to the frustration of lawyers and clients who work hard to meet deadlines only to face opponents who blow them off and judges who don’t care. I have had lawyers say to me “do you think the court will care? I will just get more time.” Now, this does not mean I am against extensions or against civility. Quite the contrary. I am all for extensions of time that are needed and requested. When a lawyer is diligently working a case and calls the other side for more time, absent some very compelling circumstance, I, like most lawyers I know, will say yes. It is the utter indifference to schedules that I find infurirating, and the courts’ unwillingness to do anything about it that I find maddening. Filing motions to compel often results in you, the rule follower, the lawyer playing by the rules, being painted as the bad guy. “Why can’t you work it out,” judges say. Well, often we try, but the courts do not want to listen. “How much time do you need,” the courts ask, frequently without ever delving into the issues to see who has been trying, and the time is almost always given. No consequence to the missed deadline, no consequence to the total disregard for rules or orders. So, in the end, the lawyer ignoring the rules is rewarded. This is no different than parenting. No consequences to your kids, and the unwatned behavior continues and soon becomes the norm. That is what has happened with dates and deadlines in court. Litigants pay no attention to deadlines, but they should. I will continue to try to meet all deadlines and to ask my opponents for extensions of time when needed and to seek court extensions when necessary. I will not disregard the rules. That’s how I was trained. That’s how the good lawyers I know practice their trade. Now, if only the courts would be more willing to stand with us. Then, I think, much of the court delays that we see and public frustartion with our system that we hear would go away. Come on judges. You are the proverbial parents of this family. Play the part.

Fight Cancer!

Matt — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:36:34 +0000

January 31, 2011: Hello world. This Saturday, February 5, 2011, I am riding in the Chicago edition of Cycle for Survival. We raise funds for cancer research, to help fight cancer so that one day cancer will exist only in the medical history books. If you can help, please do. Here is a link to our team’s page. All donations help, and 100% of the funds raised go directly to cancer research. Thanks for reading!

May It Please The Court

Matt — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:15:14 +0000

January 12, 2011: Yesterday I had the privilege to argue a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The case is on appeal following a trial court victory for my client, MediaBank, in an employment dispute (Verkuilen v. Mediabnk). The appellate panel consisted of the following judges: Easterbook, Cudahy, Posner. You can listen to the oral argument by visiting the website and entering the case number 10-3009. Let’s hope the case comes out favorably for my client.

It is always intimidating to argue cases on appeal, but it also is exhilarating. To me, arguing cases to juries and to appellate courts is the reason why I went to law school. I’m an advocate and I truly enjoy it. Don’t let all the lawyer-hating lawyers fool you. This remains a terrific profession.

Oops, I did it again

Matt — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:48:56 +0000

January 5, 2011: The good folks at Super Lawyers have once again selected me for inclusion in their list of Rising Stars in Illinois. You can see my listing here. Thanks, Super Lawyers.

Justice Prevails

Matt — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:09:26 +0000

12-8-2010: The Seventh Circuit recently vacated a $5.6 million damage award for lost profits. This was an appeal from a case I tried to a jury and unsuccessfully argued at the trial court level that the entire lost profits theory should have been thrown out. In my view, from the moment I became involved in the case shortly before trial, it was apparent that plaintiff’s damage theory was smoke and mirrors–there was no substance. We argued the issue to the trial court, but the trial judge disagreed. This led to a difficult trial where we had to protect our record for purposes of an anticipated appeal, while also mounting a vigorous defense. At every opportunity, we attacked the lost profit theory, argued and argued to the court to strike the damages and put plaintiff’s damages expert through rigorous cross examination. We were confident that we were correct on the law, but we neverthless had to honor the court’s rulings. Well, to make a long story short, we lost the trial and the jury awarded millions in damages–an undeserved windfall, if you ask me. The case was appealed, and an excellent appellate team from Jenner & Block (my alma mater) grabbed on to the lost profit issue, wrote an excellent appellate brief and precisely and effectively argued the case before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 28, 2010, the appellate court issued its opinion. We were right! The court agreed with us that the damages were too uncertain to be allowed. The court vacated the damagae award altogether and remanded the case back to the trial court for a re-trial on damages. This was the correct decision, and vindication for our client, and for the lawyers who stood in the trenches and stood their ground. Justice prevailed, indeed. Click here to read the opinion.