Michael A. Weinberg

BIOGRAPHY

In over 30 years of legal practice, Michael A. Weinberg has represented clients in a broad range of complex commercial litigation and arbitration matters. The breadth of his practice – the rich variety of industries with which he has been involved and the diverse substantive areas of the law he has been called upon to address – enables Michael to apply a wealth of experience to client problems and opportunities.

Michael has represented clients before numerous state and federal courts. For instance, he defended Reinke Insulation Company and K. Reinke, Jr. & Company in a case that was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Various carpenters' union trust funds had alleged that the Reinke entities had under-paid certain trust fund contributions. Presenting an interpretation of new collective bargaining language at trial, Michael won a judgment in favor of the Reinke defendants, which found that they had in fact remitted all required contributions to the trust funds. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. In a not-uncommon arrangement, Michael served as co-counsel on the case with a labor law firm that had turned to Novack and Macey for help with the litigation.

Sometimes Michael finds that clients don't have the problem they think they have, and his broad range of experience enables him to look at the problem with a fresh perspective that a narrowly focused specialist might not have. For instance, one client, a developer and operator of assisted living communities, faced a class action brought by residents of one of it's facilities seeking turnover of funds held by the developer/operator for it's own uses, with the plaintiffs alleging that the funds constituted a security deposit. After careful analysis of the of the rigid statutory guidelines regulating security deposits, Michael was able to argue, to the appellate court's satisfaction, that assisted-living facilities lie outside the guidelines.

Michael also is experienced with analyzing complex contractual arrangements touching upon a wide range of assets and relationships, including intellectual property. For example, he and Eric Macey represented the online travel agency Travelweb in a dispute with Orbitz, another online agency. Travelweb claimed Orbitz had structured its online search parameters in a way disadvantageous to Travelweb, in violation of an agreement between them. Michael became versed in the subtleties of online search engines, and applied that to his analysis of the contractual relationship between the two companies. The firm was able to secure a preliminary injunction on behalf of its client, leading to a favorable settlement.

Michael is a member of the Chicago Bar Association. Before coming to the firm, he was an associate with Skadden Arps and Levy & Erens, and a partner at Kadish and Weinberg. Born in Chicago in 1952, Michael lives with his wife, Mary Rauen, a pediatrician. They have two children.

EDUCATION

• Vassar College (A.B. 1973), Honors and Distinction
• University of Michigan Law School (J.D. 1976); note editor, University of Michigan Law Review

BAR ADMISSIONS

• Illinois
• United States Appeals Court for the Sixth Circuit
• United States Appeals Court for the Seventh Circuit
• Trial Bar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

SPEECHES AND PUBLICATIONS

• Co-author, “If the Supreme Court Does Not Imply a Private Judicial Cause of Action Under the Commodity Exchange Act,” Journal of Futures Markets, Vol. 1 (Supp.), 519 (1981)  

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

• Jackim v. CC- Lake, Inc., 363 Ill. App.3d 759 (1st Dist. 2005)
• CIB Bank v. Esmail, No. 04 C 4870, 2004 WL 3119027 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2004)
• Chicago Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Reinke Insulation, 347 F.3d 262 (7th Cir. 2003)
• Antler v. Classic Residence Management Ltd. Partnership, 315 Ill. App. 3d 259 (1st Dist. 2000)
• Banks v. Hit or Miss, Inc., 996 F.Supp. 802 (N.D. Ill. 1998)

MEDIA COVERAGE

• Even on Appeal, CIB Bank Cannot Defeat Novack and Macey
• Novack and Macey Defeats Motion for TRO and Pre-Judgment Attachment
• Tort Immunity Act Cannot Stop Novack and Macey
• 9 out of 10 Novack and Macey Partners Named “Leading Lawyers”
• Travelweb Prevails In Injunction Hearing Against Orbitz
• Legal Decision Protects Assets of Extended Care Facilities