Lawyers.com > Find a Lawyer > Kevin-M.-Flynn
Help

Kevin M. Flynn

Kevin M. Flynn 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Kevin M. Flynn is a Lawyer in Chicago, Illinois

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a review
Peer Rating 5.0 / 5.0
312-456-0240
View Web Site

Areas of Law

  • Trial Practice in all State and Federal Courts
  • Banking
  • Complex Business
  • Commercial
  • Chancery and Equity
  • Employment
  • Franchise
  • Mediation
  • Information Technology
  • Real Estate
  • Litigation
  • Securities
  • Trade Secrets
  • White Collar Criminal
  • Arbitration

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Kevin M. Flynn & Associates
Member
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4800,
Chicago, IL 60601
U.S.A.

Phone

312-456-0240

Fax

312-444-1028

Email

Send email to Kevin M. Flynn

Website
 

Peer Rating

av

Overall Peer Rating

5.0 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials

Admission Details

Admitted in 1978, Illinois and U.S. Supreme Court

Law School Attended

DePaul University
J.D.
with honors
Class of 1978

University Attended

DePauw University
Class of 1975
B.A.

Birth Information

Born in March 21,1953
Lafayette
Indiana

Associations & Memberships

Chicago, Seventh Circuit, Illinois State, Federal (Officer and Director, Chicago Chapter, 1988—) and American Bar Associations; American Inns of Court, Markey-Wigmore Chapter; The Association of Trial Lawyers of America; Illinois Trial Lawyers Association; NITA Advocates Association (Representative).

Representative Cases

Pillsbury v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248 (1983) (fifth amendment/antitrust); Wilmette Park District v. Village of Wilmette, 112 Ill.2d 6 (1986) (home rule authority of Illinois municipalities); Haroco v. American National Bank, 38 F.3d 1429 (7th Cir. 1994) (civil RICO); Spicer v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 977 F.2d 255 (7th Cir. 1992) (federal securities regulation); In Re: Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 655 F.2d 748 (7th Cir. 1981) (antitrust); Stathis v. Geldermann, Inc., 692 N.E.2d 798 (Ill. App. 1998) (affirming jury verdict in commercial fraud claim); Appelbaum v. Appelbaum, 823 N.E. 2d 1074 (Ill. App. 2005) (affirming issuance of preliminary injunction); Travelers v. First National Bank of Blue Island, 621 N.E.2d 209 (1993) (commercial loan foreclosure); Travelers v. Holland Farms, Inc., 504 N.E.2d 532 (Ill. App. 1987) (conflict of laws); Rosin v. First Bank of Oak Park, 466 N.E.2d 1245 (Ill. App. 1984) (real estate auction); Denton Enterprises, Inc. v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 396 N.E.2d 34 (Ill. App. 1979) (highway construction litigation); Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Bank One, et al., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 702 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (lender liability); Robbins Resource Recovery Partners, et al. v. James D. Edgar, et al. 947 F. Supp. 1205 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (unconstitutional impairment of contract); Nielsen v. Kidder, Peabody, et al., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14441 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (securities class action); Taylor v. Bank One, et al. 932 F. Supp. 218 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (consumer lending class action); Sinclair v. Bloom, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6701 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (lawyer conflict of interest); Industry Speciality Chemicals v. Cummins Engine, et al., 918 F. Supp. 1173 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (deceptive trade practices); Cusumano v. Mapco Gas Products, et al. 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7912 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (personal injury); U.S. v. 122, 942 Shares of Common Stock, 847 F. Supp. 105 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (RICO forfeiture); Robin v. Doctors Officenters Corp., 686 F. Supp. 199 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (securities class action); Coronet Insurance Company v. Seyfarth, et al., 665 F. Supp. 661 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (securities fraud).

Biographical Details

Member, DePaul Law Review, 1977-1978.

Office Information
Kevin M. Flynn
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4800,
Chicago, IL 60601
U.S.A.
Loading...


About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

Anonymity

Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.