Neil Lloyd concentrates his practice in analyzing, providing strategic advice concerning, briefing, and arguing complex issues at all stages of litigation.

In his extensive rescue litigation practice, he has persuaded trial and appellate courts to reduce or overturn substantial jury verdicts. He has represented major insurers in the defense of extra-contractual liability claims, manufacturers in the defense of product liability claims, and law firms in the defense of professional malpractice claims.

Mr. Lloyd has tried cases involving ambiguous contracts, punitive damages, and the interplay between statutory and contractual obligations.

He also has successfully litigated cases of first impression involving civil conspiracy, the arbitrability of employment discrimination claims, and the standards for prison medical treatment under the Eighth Amendment. He has argued appeals in state and federal courts across the country, including in the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh and Tenth Circuits and the Illinois Supreme Court.

Experience

• Solis v. BASF Corp., 979 N.E.2d 419 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2012) (setting aside $32 million jury verdict and granting new trial for failure to allow the jury to decide whether the claim was time barred and for an erroneous instruction that permitted the jury to impose liability for breach of a non-existent duty to warn the world about potential product risks)
• United States v. Conrad Black, et al. (2007-11) (part of the team that successfully represented former public company general counsel during trial, post-trial, and extensive appellate proceedings in major white collar criminal prosecution under the so-called “honest services” mail fraud statute)
• Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Williams, 936 So.2d 888 (Miss. Apr. 20, 2006)(setting aside a jury verdict and granting a new trial for failure to bifurcate breach of contract and extra-contractual liability claims)
• Properties Unlimited, Inc. Realtors v. Cendant Mobility Services, 384 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 2004)(rejecting trial court's attempt to retroactively extend post-trial motion deadline
• Waddill v. Anchor Hocking, Inc., 190 Or.App. 172 (Or. App. Oct. 22, 2003), reducing punitive damages award from 10:1 to 4:1 ratio on remand from the United States Supreme Court, 538 U.S. 974 (2003))
• Martin Properties, Inc. v. Florida Industries Inv. Corp., 2004 WL 433217 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 04, 2004)(in declaratory action, granting summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding no fraud or breach of fiduciary duty)
• Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 2003 WL 22057251 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 03, 2003) (granting summary judgment and rejecting defendant's challenge to decades-old indemnification agreement based on plaintiff's change of supplier)
• In re Collins, 233 F.3d 809 (3rd Cir. 2000)(rejecting challenge to multi-district litigation court's practice of severing and retaining punitive damage claims when remanding federal asbestos personal injury claims for trial)
• Morin v. Foret, 736 So.2d 279 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1999)(reversing defense judgment after bench trial and rendering judgment for the plaintiff in breach of contract action)
• Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364 (7th Cir. 1997) (articulating new standard for prison medical treatment cases under the Eighth Amendment)
• Superior Industries Intern., Inc. v. Faulk, 695 So.2d 376 (Fla. App. 5th Dist. 1997) (in product liability action, setting aside jury verdict and granting new trial based on improper conduct by plaintiff’s counsel)

Speeches and Presentations

"Legal Ethics: Conflicts of Interest," Legal Ethics in Illinois, Naperville and Chicago, Ill. (May 7 and 14, 2013)

"The Ethics of Lawyer-Client Fallout," (moderator) ABA Section of Litigation Annual Conference, Chicago, Ill. (April 25, 2013)

Pro Bono Activities

• In association with the ABA's Death Penalty Representation Project and the Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, Mr. Lloyd for more than a decade represented an Alabama capital defendant pressing claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel through the state and federal courts.
• In association with the Office of the Illinois Appellate Defender, he has represented criminal defendants in their direct appeals.
• Under appointment from the federal trial and appellate courts in Chicago, he has represented incarcerated persons challenging the conditions of their confinement.