Arnstein & Lehr

Arnstein & Lehr, LLP

Headquarters	120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1200 Chicago, Illinois
No. of offices	9
No. of attorneys	approximately 150
Major practice areas	General practice
Date founded	1893
Founder	Albert Henry Loeb, and Sidney Adler
Company type	Limited liability partnership
Website	[1]

Founded in Chicago in 1893, Arnstein & Lehr is a national law firm with offices in Chicago, and Springfield, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Tampa, and West Palm Beach, Florida. Throughout its long history, Arnstein & Lehr has served clients, large and small, throughout the United States and in many foreign countries. The Firm has been recognized for obtaining significant victories in major litigation throughout the United States and Puerto Rico in achieving outstanding results in business transactions here and abroad. The Firms’ representation of Sears, Roebuck and Co. since 1895 is one of the country’s longest continuous attorney-client relationships.

History

1893 was truly an exciting time in Chicago. World eyes were turned to the city by the Lake where the Columbian Exposition was underway, and business leaders from all parts of the world were discovering the unique and profitable markets that existed there. It was in this milieu that Albert Henry Loeb and Sydney Adler founded a law partnership which specialized in corporate and real estate law. The offices were in room 903 of the Chamber of Commerce Building located on the southeast corner of LaSalle and Washington Streets in Chicago. The Firm was then known as Loeb & Adler. After several changes in name to reflect the changing membership, the Firm eventually, in 1988, became Arnstein & Lehr, LLP reflecting the Firm’s leadership by the late Leo H. Arnstein and Louis A. Lehr, Jr. a nationally known trial attorney. The Firm was then located in the Sears Tower and subsequently moved to its present location at 120 South Riverside Plaza, Chicago.

In 1895, Sears Roebuck and Co. became the first of many major corporations that the Firm would represent throughout the years when the fledgling firm of Loeb & Adler handled the reorganization of Sears and the entry into the company of Julius Rosenwald and Aaron Nusbaum. Legend has it that when, in 1895 Nusbaum and Richard Sears attempted early one Saturday to locate the lawyer to whom they had been referred but he was not in his office. The light was on in the offices of Loeb and Adler and Albert Henry Loeb was retained to draft the reorganization documents giving equal ownership to Rosenwald and Nusbaum with Sears and incorporating the company in Illinois. Some of these documents are displayed on the walls of the Firm to this day.

In the early part of the Twentieth Century, the Firm undertook representation of many new clients including Kroehler Manufacturing Mfg. Co., Charles Wurlitzer Co., Lady Esther Company and Congress Cigar Co. the makers of LaPalina cigars. When Albert Henry Loeb resigned from the Firm in 1903 to become a full time executive for Sears, Charles Lederer joined the Firm. Subsequently, he became a noted trial lawyer and began the Firm’s tradition of trying its client’s cases throughout the country. In 1923, United States Senator James Hamilton Lewis, who had lost a re-election bid, joined the Firm as a partner and his name was included in the Firm name. To begin his successful bid to regain his seat in the Senate, he resigned from the Firm in 1927. Also in the 1920’s, Lucy Mae Viner, one of the first women lawyers in the city, joined the Firm. She was shown on the letterhead as L. M. Varner.

Prominent Cases/Matters

Leopold and Loeb

In 1924 the Firm was involved in what the Chicago newspapers labeled the “Trial of the Century”. Two teenagers, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were accused of kidnapping and killing Bobby Franks, a 14-year-old boy from the Kenwood/Hyde Park neighborhood in which they lived. Richard Loeb was the son of one of the Firm’s founding partners, Albert Loeb, who was then a Sears’ executive. The Loebs, as well as the Leopold and Frank families were neighbors of the Firm’s Charles Lederer and his family. A pair of eye glasses found at the murder scene were traced to Nathan Leopold, and on May 29, 1924 Richard Loeb was arrested after Leopold implicated him in the crime.

Albert Henry Loeb immediately contacted Charles Lederer who attempted to obtain the boys release. Despite a personal friendship with the District Attorney, the request was refused, and a day later the District Attorney telephoned Lederer to tell him that the boys had confessed to the murder. Lederer telephoned the senior Loeb who was stunned by the news. At that time, both Lederer and Senator Lewis were well-known trial lawyers in Chicago and thought of defending the boys. However, some believe that because of the relationship with Albert Henry Loeb, Clarence Darrow was employed.

Throughout the trial Darrow met with Senator Lewis and Lederer to discuss strategy. After the state finished its case, Darrow told Lederer during a meeting that while none of his clients had ever been executed, this might be the first time. However, due primarily to Darrow’s eloquence in his twelve hour final argument, Leopold and Loeb received life sentences.

Sears Tower Litigation

The construction of Sears Tower involved the Firm in one of the country’s most unusual lawsuits. In 1972 as construction of the building neared the 50th story, the state’s attorney of neighboring Lake County brought suit against Sears, Roebuck and Co. in the name of the People of the State of Illinois to halt construction claiming that the completed building would interfere with television reception to the north and west of Chicago. Shortly thereafter, a similar suit was filed in Cook County by several Chicago suburbs. Arnstein & Lehr defended the lawsuits and won both of them in the trial courts. As expected, the plaintiffs appealed and because of the importance of the litigation the suits were consolidated, the Appellate Courts were by-passed and the matter went directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois. On June 30, 1972 the Supreme Court entered an order upholding the decision of the trial courts to permit the construction as planned and followed it with a written opinion on September 20, 1972.

Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation – MDL189

(Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.)

In the 1970’s one of this country’s largest and most complex antitrust suits began when an antitrust and dumping suit was filed in 1972 in New Jersey by National Union Electric Corp. against many of its Japanese competitors alleging a conspiracy to destroy the United States television industry. Two years later, Zenith Radio Corporation filed a similar suit in Pennsylvania against the same defendants and added Motorola and Sears as co-conspirators. Sears turned to Arnstein & Lehr to handle its defense. The suits were consolidated into multi district litigation pending in the United States District Court in Philadelphia. The suit first made legal history in 1980 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a plaintiff does not have an absolute right to a trial by jury in a civil case. Subsequently, the defendants, including Sears, filed Motions for Summary Judgment on both the antitrust and dumping claims. After summer long hearings on a daily basis to determine what evidence could be considered on the Summary Judgment Motions, Judge Edward R. Becker entered summary judgment for all defendants on both claims. Plaintiffs appealed and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgments for all the defendants with the exception of a few, including Arnstein & Lehr’s client Sears Roebuck and Co. The Supreme Court of the United States later reinstated the summary judgments for the other defendants. The plaintiffs had sought 1.3 billion dollars in damages.

Supreme Court Rules for Demolition Contractors – Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States

In the late 1970’s the Environmental Protection Agency propagated a “National Emission Standard for Asbestos” and specified a certain procedure be followed in demolition of buildings containing asbestos but not limiting asbestos emissions that occur during a demolition. The National Association of Demolition Contractors retained Arnstein & Lehr to defend criminal charges brought against member demolition contractors throughout the country for violation of what the government termed an “emission standard”. One such indictment was returned in the federal court in Detroit, Michigan. The district court trial judge agreed with Arnstein & Lehr that the regulation was not an “emission standard” but rather a “work rule” the violation of which was not a criminal offense. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and held that the regulation was an “emission standard”. Emboldened by the appellate court decision, the government proceeded with criminal trials, defended by the Firm, against demolition contractors throughout the nation. Arnstein & Lehr’s Petition for Certiorari was granted and on January 10, 1978 the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5 to 4 decision agreed with the Firm’s position that the regulation was not an “emission standard” but rather a “work rule” which a failure to follow was not a criminal activity.

San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation – MDL721

In San Juan, Puerto Rico on New Year’s Eve in 1987, 97 people perished and over 200 were injured in a fire which spread through the hotel and casino after being set by disgruntled employees in a vacant ballroom. Within a few months 2,300 plaintiffs had filed numerous lawsuits in Puerto Rico and throughout the United States. The judicial panel for Multidistrict Litigation transferred these related cases to San Juan, Puerto Rico for discovery and subsequently for trial against approximately 250 defendants. The United States 1st Circuit Court of Appeals called this litigation “a litigatory monster.” The trial court divided the lawsuit into three trial phases. All of the defendants in the first trial phase settled. The second trial phase dealt with product liability defendants and suppliers to the hotel. The case was tried in a specially built federal courtroom in Hato Ray, Puerto Rico and one of the defendants was Johnson Controls, Inc. of Milwaukee defended by Arnstein & Lehr. Plaintiffs claimed that Johnson Controls sold and installed an energy management system which failed to give an early warning of the fire. After nine months of trial Johnson Controls was one of only two defendants to receive a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs’ case. When this trial was completed there was approximately $220,908,549.00 accumulated in a settlement fund for the plaintiffs as a result of the various settlement agreements and a jury verdict against some of the defendants.