Johnson & Bell, Ltd.Share Holder

H. Patrick Morris

About H. Patrick Morris

H. Patrick Morris is a lawyer practicing aviation, business litigation, class action and 2 other areas of law. H. Patrick received a B.A. degree from Tulane University, University of Illinois in 1979, and . H. Patrick practices at Johnson & Bell, Ltd. in Chicago, IL.

Awards

Reviews for H. Patrick

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Business Law 1
    • Business Litigation
  • Other 4
    • Aviation
    • Class Action
    • Product Liability
    • Toxic Tort

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Shareholder
    Firm Name
    Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Representative Cases: Defamation
    First Amendment Litigation: Invasion of Privacy. Successful defense of a publisher in an invasion of privacy action for release
    publication of sensitive personal information of participants in a major health study, resulting in summary judgment under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act) (47 U.S.C. 222 (2000).
    First Amendment/Defamation Trial. Successful defense in a high-profile trial
    on appeal of The Chicago Tribune as co-counsel in defamation suit brought against it
    its Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist by former prosecutor in the sensational Jeanine Nicarico murder case in which two men, Rol
    o Cruz
    Alej
    ro Hern
    ez, both Latinos, were wrongfully convicted of abduction, rape
    murder in DuPage County, Illinois
    both sentenced to death.
    Defamation of Public Figure. Successful representation of former Hall of Fame professional athlete to respond to pre-publication
    ultimate publication of defamatory content, requiring retraction
    settlement.
    Defamation RICO/Criminal Conspiracy. Successful representation resulting in a substantial settlement for a CEO of a Chicago corporation who was falsely accused of involvement in a criminal RICO scheme in which others were charged
    convicted in federal court.
    Media Defendant. Successful representation of a prominent television figure in pre-publication
    post-publication to respond to publication of defamatory content, requiring retraction
    settlement.
    Toxic Tort : Baby Powder Lawsuits: Represents a multi-national healthcare company in high-stakes litigation related to their cosmetic talcum powder products over allegations that its products contain asbestos
    cause mesothelioma.
    Successfully represented a refinery owner at a two week trial against plaintiff's claim that his lung cancer developed as a result of a 'synergistic effect' between his alleged asbestos exposure
    his cigarette smoking. The jury returned a verdict that found that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's lung cancer was cigarette smoking. In the months leading up to the trial, the parties had argued over which expert witnesses would be allowed to testify on plaintiff's behalf. The judge accepted the defense arguments that plaintiff's expert theories were scientifically unreliable,
    that the Court should bar its use at trial. Using the Daubert factors, the Court disallowed the witnesses' testimony concerning their alleged knowledge of asbestos exposure,
    particularly the 'any exposure' theory, under which any exposure to asbestos results in injury
    is considered to potentially cause cancer. Krik v. ExxonMobil, et al, No. 1:10-cv-07435 - Document 299 (N.D. Ill. 2014).
    Obtained summary judgment in favor of premises owner for alleged exposure to asbestos that occurred during the initial construction of a grass roots refinery. In a case of first impression, summary judgment was upheld by the First District Court of Appeals which articulated the duties owed by premises owners in Illinois to independent contractors in the context of alleged exposure to asbestos. The court held that the refinery owner was not liable to the plaintiff for the alleged exposure to the asbestos-containing materials with which he
    other construction workers were working. Gregory v. ExxonMobil, 892 N.E.2d 563 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2008).
    Successfully represented the world's largest producer of chromium chemicals in a suit alleging conspiracy over a period of many years by the company
    its trade association to suppress information about the cancer-causing potential of sodium dichromate, a hexavalent chromium VI compound.
    Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of two coatings manufacturers in a case in which plaintiffs claimed that the 97 deaths
    more than 200 injuries arising from a New Year's Eve hotel fire in San Juan, Puerto Rico, were attributable to hydrogen cyanide off-gassing from the products.
    Commercial Litigation: Representation of trustee of an Internal Revenue Code 468B Qualified Settlement Funds ('QSF') in a lawsuit involving the allocation of the settlement amounts between the various MDL plaintiffs
    their attorneys.
    Representation of a beneficiary of an estate in a lawsuit seeking to recover damages against former insiders
    affiliates, asserting claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty,
    fraudulent transfer.
    Representation of a corporation defending against the theory that it was liable for the debtor's liabilities on fraudulent conveyance, mere continuation or de facto merger theories.
    Representation in Delaware Chancery Court of a beneficiary of an IRS Sections 671-677 Creditors Liquidation Trust Agreement, seeking interpretation of the trustee's obligations
    Class Action : Busse v Motorola
    Represented defendant in Nationwide Class Action on alleged breach of privacy ('intrusion upon seclusion') for claimed release of customer information in national database of cell phone users used to study brain tumors. Summary judgment in favor of defendant affirmed by the First District (Illinois) appellate court. 813 N.E.2d 1013, 351 Ill. App. 3d 67, 286 Ill. Dec. 320.
    Statewide class Complaint filed in the N.D. Ill alleged defendant violated the Real Estate Settlement
    Procedures Act Regulation X
    the Illinois Consumer Fraud
    Deceptive Practices Act, in connection with certain loan documentation. Representing the defendant, we successfully opposed class certification, which resulted in an individual settlement with the class representative.
    Statewide class Complaint filed in the Northern District of Illinois alleged defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
    Deceptive Practices Act
    various state laws in connection with certain title insurance documentation. Representing the defendant, we successfully opposed class certification on the numerosity requirement, which was granted, after which Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claim.
    Statewide class Complaint filed in Lake County, Illinois alleged defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
    Deceptive Practices Act
    various state laws in connection with certain title insurance documentation. Representing the defendant, we successfully opposed class certification
    moved to dismiss on procedural grounds, which was granted.
    Statewide class Complaint filed in Cook County, Illinois seeking injunctive relief
    alleging defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
    Deceptive Practices Act
    various state laws in connection with certain business practices . Representing the defendant, we successfully opposed class certification
    then moved to dismiss the remaining claims on substantive grounds, which was granted.
    Statewide putative class action filed in Lake County by a class representative purporting to represent groups of the defendant's past customers who allegedly were charged either excessive or duplicative fees for the recording of documents with county officials pursuant to real estate transactions. We successfully opposed class certification
    then moved to dismiss the remaining claims on substantive grounds, which was granted.
    Sturman v AABB was a class action filed against the American Association of Blood Banks ('AABB') on behalf of a class of all individuals who received blood transfusions in Illinois. The lawsuit alleged negligence by AABB in failing to establish st
    ards for its member hospitals, requiring them to notify the class of their increased risk for Hepatitis C virus ('HCV'), breaching an alleged fiduciary duty owed to the class

    committing fraud by failing to inform class members about their increased risk for HCV. Working with National Counsel, John Parker Sweeney, we were successful in having the class claims dismissed on the basis that common questions of law
    fact did not predominate. Affirmed, 343 Ill App 3d 1299.
    A lender, sued in the Northern District of Illinois in a purported class action for consumer fraud
    violations of various federal banking regulations, brought a third-party claim against the firm's client, a mortgage servicer, for contribution
    indemnity for alleged complicity in the creation of certain mortgage documentation. Representing the defendant, we successfully moved to dismiss the class claims on 23 (a) ' adequacy'
    'typicality' grounds, which was granted
    Illinois Statewide Class Settlement of dispute related to the allocation of recording fees charged in real estate closings. Class settlement negotiated after contentious litigation involving full class certification proceedings, discovery on the merits
    petitions for attorneys' fees.
    Blesy v Kustom Signals. Plaintiffs purported to bring this action on behalf of a nationwide class of police officers who allegedly used traffic radar systems manufactured by four manufacturers. The firm represented a radar gun manufacturer against a potential class of all police officers in the U.S. ever exposed to radar speed detection equipment. The officers complained that their retinal, testicular,
    other myelomas were a result of their exposure to the equipment. We succeeded in having the class action dismissed prior to the certification stage, on the basis that the claim for medical monitoring for increased risk of future injuries to the police officers did not meet the 'injury-in-fact' requirement under Illinois Law. The plaintiffs appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the decision
    refused to extend the st
    ards for the manifestations of the injuries.
    Board of Education v AC&S. Asbestos Property Damage Litigation-Chicago. Represented a surface treatment defendant in the asbestos property damage litigation filed by the Chicago
    Evanston Boards of Education here in Chicago
    in one downstate jurisdiction. We obtained a dismissal without any settlement payment of these suits since the plaintiffs could not provide product identification of the asbestos containing sprayed on ceiling coatings.
    Insulation Material. This class action filed in the mid-eighties purported to involve millions of nationwide homeowners
    building owners. Represented a chemical manufacturer who supplied components that were used in creating urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) which was installed in many homes built in the 1970's
    was retrofitted into many buildings to provide enhanced insulation during the energy crisis. The plaintiffs complained of symptoms including headaches, runny noses
    birth defects. The court allowed discovery on the issues related to class certification. The firm assembled extensive scientific affidavits in opposition to the certification
    our motion to dismiss was granted, certification was refused,
    only eleven individual cases were eventually filed.
    David Dung Ngo, et al. vs. Amoco Corporation, et al. Better known as the Amoco Research Center cancer cluster cases, the claims ranged from eight to forty counts. Represented a chemical manufacturer charged with negligence
    strict liability for failing to warn of the dangerous properties of its chemicals which resulted in brain cancer to lab workers in twelve cases. The class portion of the complaint sought damages for medical monitoring for all of the facility's workers. J & B's client was successful in having all actions against it dismissed.

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    Illinois Supreme Court
    Missouri Supreme Court
    U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
    Federal Trial Bar, Northern District of Illinois
    U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
    U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri
    U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois
    U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana
    U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana
    U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan
    U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
    U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois
    Memberships

    Affiliations

    •Food Safety Summit Professionals

    •Food Safety & Refrigeration Monitoring Network

    •International Association of Defense Counsel

    •Society for Chemical Hazard Communication

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law
    Class of 1983
    J.D.
    Other Education
    Tulane University, University of Illinois
    Class of 1979
    B.A.
  • Personal Details & History
    Age
    Born in 1956
    Chicago, Illinois, September 6, 1956

H. Patrick Morris

Share Holder at Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
Not yet reviewed

33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700Chicago, IL 60603-5404U.S.A.

Show on map

Lawyers Nearby

David Rapoport
Pro
David Rapoport
5.0
Aviation Law lawyer

Free Consultation

Andrew Stephen Kryder, Esq.
Pro
Andrew Stephen Kryder, Esq.
5.0
Aviation Law lawyer

Free Consultation

Andrew Stephen Kryder, Esq.
Pro
Andrew Stephen Kryder, Esq.
5.0
Aviation Law lawyer

Free Consultation

Charles Lee Mudd, Jr.
Pro
Charles Lee Mudd, Jr.
5.0
Aviation Law lawyer
Adam J. Zayed
Pro
Adam J. Zayed
5.0
Aviation Law lawyer

Free Consultation

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message: