Chicago Building & Contractor Litigation Lawyer

Jeremy has litigated continuously since 2002 in well over 30 state and federal court venues nationwide, handling more lawsuits, hearings, and disputes than can be counted. He has taken part in hundreds of depositions and contested hearings, spanning the civil and criminal sides – from four years of pure plaintiff-side contingency-fee litigation to nearly 14 years as a litigation partner and associate at an Am Law 200 firm – where he has helped prosecute and defend claims exceeding $150 million and multi-party disputes with 10 or more parties.

In 2001–2002, Jeremy served in the chambers of the Hon. Morey L. Sear, Chief Judge Emeritus of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. He assisted with contested matters on the Judge’s civil docket and drafted opinion memoranda for the Judge’s role on the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) involving air disasters, intellectual property, antitrust, products liability, securities, sales, and employment practices. This gave him early exposure to federal practice and procedure, complementing his prior work in Washington, D.C., where in 1999, he served in the Office of the Attorney General (formally the Office of the Washington D.C. Corporation Counsel) and helped to prosecute crimes committed in the District.

From 2002–2006, Jeremy litigated at Cozen O’Connor P.C., an Am Law 100 firm. On a 100% contingency-fee basis, he prosecuted dozens of construction defect, products liability, and casualty cases in state and federal courts across the Midwest. His practice included contract and tort claims, transportation and shipping losses, contribution and indemnity actions, warranty and U.C.C. disputes, suits against municipal entities, and actions against architects, engineers, and contractors involving design errors, collapses, and other failures. He also handled product liability cases across a wide range of industrial and consumer products, and supervised dozens of expert witnesses for inspections, forensic analysis, and depositions.

From 2006–2019, Jeremy litigated at Schiff Hardin LLP (now Arent Fox Schiff LLP), an Am Law 200 firm, where he was elected partner in 2012. During his tenure, U.S. News ranked Schiff Hardin the #1 Construction Litigation practice in the United States. In federal court, he served on teams which defended utilities against $150M-plus in claims, litigated a $7M design negligence claim tied to a $1B healthcare project, litigated allowance of a seven-figure design fee in bankruptcy, defended a cost estimator terminated from an international airport project, brought Miller Act surety bond claims on public projects, litigated architectural copyright infringement claims, and defended clients accused of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA) accessibility violations resolved through federal judge-supervised consent decrees, to name a few. He also litigated a constitutional challenge to the zoning of a 71-turbine wind farm, represented architects and engineers in countless malpractice lawsuits, and litigated to lift injunctions imposed by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and local prosecutors. His home is the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, where he has litigated extensively in the Law Division and in more mechanics lien and mortgage foreclosure matters than he can count in the Chancery Division. He learned under top-tier litigators, including former federal prosecutors and leading construction litigators, and as a partner, he trained the next generation of associates – many of whom are now top litigation partners at elite law firms.

Jeremy’s two decades of litigation experience – spanning state and federal courts in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New York, Colorado, California, Ohio, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and other states – did not end when he formed Baker Law Group LLC to focus on transactions and contract negotiation.

Since founding Baker Law Group LLC in 2019, Jeremy has continued to handle substantial construction litigation, though now as the sole courtroom advocate for his clients rather than as part of a large national team. His recent cases reflect the same focus on complex, high-value disputes that have defined his career. He has litigated:

He successfully defended an owner’s representative firm and its CEO in a $5.2M multiparty lawsuit over a religious facility, securing their dismissal with prejudice. In addition, he continues to represent architects and engineers across a range of litigation – from mechanics lien and foreclosure actions to professional liability claims – and has also handled subpoena responses that kept design professionals and other clients from being drawn into litigation in the first place.

Despite his considerable litigation experience, Jeremy’s philosophy is rooted in cost-efficient dispute resolution: he works to prevent disputes from arising and, when they do, he tries to resolve them swiftly through negotiation, mediation, and other practical tools. But when an opponent proves unreasonable, he litigates to win without compromise. And when judicial resolution is the only viable path – such as mechanics lien and mortgage foreclosure claims, surety bond disputes, intellectual property infringement suits, and accessibility litigation under federal statutes – he brings the full measure of his courtroom advocacy to bear.

Is Litigation Necessary?

Entanglement in occasional litigation is almost inevitable. Even the most skilled and reputable designers and builders get swept up in lawsuits. Certain kinds of disputes can only be resolved in court. Serious disputes require serious litigators. Substantial courtroom experience and ability is a must for design and business litigation attorneys in Chicago.

Advantages of Litigation In Chicago

The courtroom is the best venue to resolve certain kinds of disputes. Court rules and procedures enhance due process, which protects litigants from rushed or incorrect outcomes. The principle of stare decisis – which forces judges to follow precedents set by earlier cases – promotes predictability. Court decisions are also freely appealable. Litigation provides a number of important safeguards for important disputes.

At times, litigation is the only option. Claims based on statutes – like mechanics liens, mortgage foreclosures, surety bond claims, lawsuits for infringement of intellectual property, and claims about the accessibility of property by disabled persons – often must be resolved through court litigation.

Choosing litigation over Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is often the most strategic option. Taking apart your opponent’s claim with motion practice, requests for admission of fact, or early depositions is sometimes the cheapest and quickest way to resolve a case. Attorneys who practice design and construction law must always be ready to do battle in the courtroom.

Disadvantages of Litigation In Chicago

Litigation also has huge drawbacks. It is the slowest and most expensive way to resolve disputes. Arcane court procedures and rules seldom promote early, cost-efficient dispute resolution. Businesspeople want to focus on design and construction, not depositions and trials. Thus, with some exceptions, litigation is best viewed as a last resort.

Nearly all design and construction disputes settle before trial. But they settle too late, after too much inconvenience and expense. Years of avoidable hassle and expense – often incurred for needless formal discovery and procedural disputes – come before disputes settle, often on the eve of trial. This is both predictable and avoidable.

Business leaders need information to make decisions. However, they do not need to know every single fact to decide whether or not to settle disputes. They need to know ‘enough’ to make smart business decisions. And litigation is the most inefficient means of information exchange ever devised. Lawyers fight each other at every step! ADR is often a more efficient way to get businesspeople the information they need.

Litigating…Strategically

The fact is, compared to many other kinds of disputes, it is relatively easy to predict the outcome of design and construction claims. Vast disagreement about the claim’s true dollar value is often lacking. This is not true with many other claim types. Experienced design and construction counsel – chest-pounding aside – can often agree on a range of likely claim outcomes at the case outset. Usually, any real uncertainty turns upon a few disputed facts or legal issues.

Knowing this, savvy design and business construction attorneys litigate intentionally. They go right at the key issues. They take the key fact depositions early. They find pressure points early and squeeze – HARD. They force opponents to confront the weakness of their positions. They use court procedures to set up early successful outcomes, often forcing favorable settlements with targeted information exchange and motion practice. And when all else fails, they win at trial.

This should be uncontroversial: lawyers who mindlessly ride waves of court procedures towards trials which are unlikely to occur – with no strategic ‘off-ramp’ in site – waste their clients’ time and money. Clients should not stand for it – not when aggressive, targeted advocacy by skilled design and construction attorneys often promotes early and favorable court outcomes.

What Is Commercial Litigation (and Are There Better Ways to Resolve Design and Construction Disputes)?

Commercial litigation describes the resolution of “business disputes” through litigation and court process. Business disputes can involve a wide range of issues, including those that have nothing to do with design and construction law. Business disputes might be best resolved through litigation, but design and construction disputes are better resolved through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods like arbitration and mediation.

Many business disputes are resolved through litigation under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which provides clear rules judges can easily apply.

Design and construction disputes are different. Design and construction claims arise for many reasons, but there is no single set of rules to govern design and construction claims. Specific legal doctrines have “grown up” around design and construction disputes. Usually, only experienced design and construction attorneys, who focus exclusively on design and construction, understand these unique doctrines. Judges and juries rarely understand the design and construction process. They often cannot understand the intricacies of issues like calculation of construction cost damages and critical path method scheduling disputes. Judges and juries often struggle to identify which disputed facts are most important.

By contrast, Arbitrators and mediators who resolve design and construction disputes have experienced and knowledge in construction law and practice. Because of their expertise, arbitrators and mediators may not need the same legal briefing that a judge unfamiliar with design and construction law would. Experienced design and construction attorneys will instinctively understand the right questions to ask, the right doctrines to apply and will have a better sense of the equities than judges. Construction arbitrators and mediators are often better equipped than judges and juries to reach the “right outcome,” the fair outcome, the one the project participants can accept, in resolving design and construction claims.

To learn more, contact a Chicago building & contractor litigation lawyer at Baker Law Group today.