Skip to Main Content

Frederic R. Klein


Frederic R. Klein photo


Representative Appellate Matters 

  • Starck v. Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, 2022 IL App (1st) 210680-U (law firm and one of its partners sued by purported estate beneficiaries in action alleging legal malpractice and tortious interference pertaining to drafting will and trust documents; motion to dismiss with prejudice on grounds of jurisdictional and statutes of limitations bars, release, and lack of attorney-client relationship granted; Appellate Court, without oral argument, unanimously affirmed dismissal with prejudice based on jurisdictional and limitations bars in the Probate Act).  
  • Foster v. Becker, et al. (7th Cir. No. 21-2690) (action against two large law firms, two lawyers, and their client alleging Sec. 1983 conspiracy claims and other related theories, dismissed by the District Court with prejudice)(ECF No. 16, 10/25/21, granting motion for summary affirmance of District Court’s dismissal, and issuing rule to show cause why appellant should not be required to pay sanctions for frivolous appeal, or be barred from future filings)(ECF No. 19, 11/9/21, sanctioning appellant $5,000 for filing frivolous appeal)(ECF No. 23, 12/2/21, ordering clerk to return unfiled appellant’s future filings until sanctions paid in full). 
  • Berger v. Schiff Hardin LLP, 2020 IL App (1st) 192329-U (expelled law firm partner sued former firm alleging that more than $2 million in promised compensation, unpaid during time of disability, had not been paid after disability insurance ended; firm won motion for summary disposition under JAMS Rule 18 by establishing that no agreement for future compensation had been made, no amount had been agreed, and persons who purportedly made the promise to pay lacked authority, so former partner was awarded zero by the arbitrator; trial court granted law firm’s motion for summary judgment and confirmed the arbitration award; Appellate Court unanimously, and without oral argument, affirmed the grant of summary judgment which confirmed the arbitration award in law firm’s favor). 
  • Whirlpool Corporation v. Faegre Drinker Biddle & ReathLLP, 2020 IL App (1st) 191042-U (former client brought legal malpractice case against law firm, originally seeking $32 million, arising out of advice about whether customs duties would be imposed by the U.S. Commerce Department for the importation of aluminum parts from China; after two week trial involving fact and many expert witnesses on customs duties, standard of care, and damages, jury rendered a verdict in favor of law firm and awarded zero to the former client based on defenses of “judgmental immunity,” lack of proximate cause, contributory negligence by former client, and failure of proof as to liability and damages; Appellate Court unanimously, and without oral argument, affirmed the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict based on the “two-issue” rule).  
  • In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation, 782 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2015) (Posner) (class action price-fixing claim brought against four largest wireless carriers – AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile – claiming a conspiracy to fix prices of text messages in the “unbundled” market and seeking $2.7 billion in damages before trebling; summary judgment granted by District Court affirmed by Court of Appeals finding no express agreement to fix prices, even if there was parallel conduct that resulted in exactly the same prices for unbundled text messages). 
  • Safeco v. AIG, 710 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2013) (Easterbrook) (representation of seven Settlement Class Plaintiffs on behalf of 1300 insurance company class members suing AIG for fraud; after final judgment approving $450 million class action settlement was appealed by objectors and argued for 50 minutes, but before the issuance of a “merits” opinion, objectors voluntarily dismissed their Seventh Circuit appeals with prejudice and without monetary or other consideration of any kind from Settlement Class Plaintiffs, and Court of Appeals entered judgment approving the dismissal of all appeals with prejudice). 
  • Sabo v. Dennis Technology v. Sprint Nextel, 408 Ill.App.3d 619  (5th Dist. 2011)(wireless company and sales representative entered into territorial sales contract, including a commercial arbitration agreement if disputes arose; after sales representative was terminated, it brought suit for unpaid commissions and other relief, and wireless company moved to stay litigation and to compel arbitration; after evidentiary hearing, trial court granted wireless company’s motion to stay the case and to compel arbitration, and Appellate Court affirmed on all grounds, including a ruling that the arbitration provision was fully enforceable). 
  • Keck Garrett & Associates, Inc. v. Nextel Communications, Inc., 517 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2008) (Ripple) (vendor sued telecommunications company under blanket purchase order containing terms and conditions for services and payment; summary judgment in favor of telecommunications company affirmed on breach of contract and quantum meruit grounds because no specific services were ever requested and no actual value was provided, and attorneys’ fees awarded to defendant on remand). 
  • Cohen v. Compact Power Systems, LLC, 382 Ill.App.3d 104 (1st Dist. 2008) (affirming dismissal of consumer class action complaint against the firm’s client Nextel, among other defendants, on grounds that named plaintiff was tendered the relief requested before class was certified, and plaintiff failed to expeditiously pursue class certification; ruling established important foundation in case law regarding what constitutes diligent pursuit of class certification — plaintiff’s delay of over eight months to file class certification motion was not sufficiently diligent, and claims were thus mooted by tender and delay). 
  • CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. McDermott International, Inc., 368 Ill. App. 3d 603, 858 N.E.2d 563 (1st Dist. 2006) (fire at oil refinery caused $600 million in property damage and business interruption losses, and refinery owner sued manufacturer of defective equipment, who brought third party contribution action against prior owner who constructed refinery; third party action dismissed before trial on grounds of Construction Statute of Repose, and dismissal affirmed by Appellate Court two days after jury verdict against principal defendant for $387 million). 
  • United Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 409 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (in unusual appellate proceeding, Goldberg Kohn, on behalf of aircraft financier clients, moved the Seventh Circuit to enforce its earlier judgment and the Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower courts to dismiss the proceeding against the firm’s clients). 
  • United Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 406 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2005) (Easterbrook) (in a case involving the intersection of bankruptcy and anti-trust law as applied to commercial aircraft financings, the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Goldberg Kohn’s clients, reversing the bankruptcy and district courts, and holding that the firm’s clients had not violated anti-trust restrictions by collectively bargaining for the treatment of their claims). 
  • BEM I, LLC v. Anthropologie Inc., 301 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2002) (Posner) (dispute over commercial lease and construction project for multi-tenant building leased by national retailer; arbitration award after two-week hearing confirmed by District Court (Pallmeyer) and affirmed by Court of Appeals, including affirmance of attorneys’ fees and costs award of $215,000). 
  • Central States v. Fulkerson, 238 F.3d 891 (7th Cir.) (Flaum), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 821 (2001) (reversal of District Court’s ruling under ERISA concerning liability of company’s owners for “withdrawal liability” from multi-employer pension plan). 
  • Trident Inv. Management v. Amoco Oil Co., 194 F.3d 772 (7th Cir. 1999) (Wood) (affirmance of $1.85 million jury verdict in favor of pension plan whose shopping center was environmentally contaminated by gas station, destroying fair market value of property). 
  • St. George Chicago Inc. v. Murges, 296 Ill.App.3d 285, 695 N.E.2d 503 (1st Dist.), leave to appeal denied, 179 Ill.2d 618, 705 N.E.2d 449 (1998) (reversal of trial court’s partial rulings and remand for second jury trial on damages incurred under commercial lease; issues involved valuation of skyscraper office space in Chicago Loop’s market). 
  • Jackson v. Roth, 24 F.3d 1002 (7th Cir. 1994) (Posner) (habeas petition denied, though “Jackson’s main argument, forcefully presented by his able appointed counsel, Frederic Klein, is that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment entitles him to be resentenced…”).  
  • Boulevard Bank v. Phillips Medical Systems, 15 F.3d 1419 (7th Cir. 1994) (Cudahy) (affirmance of District Court’s grant of summary judgment on international guaranty of commercial loan including affirmance of attorneys’ fees and costs award of $328,000). 
  • Baja Contractors Inc. v. City of Chicago, 830 F.2d 667 (7th Cir. 1987) (Ripple), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 993 (1988) (reversal of District Court’s preliminary injunction relating to City of Chicago’s MBE program, holding that plaintiff’s due process rights were not violated by City). 

Representative Trial Court Matters 

  • Pop Test Cortisol v. University of Chicago, 2015 WL 3822237 (D.N.J. June 18, 2015)(Martini)(RICO, patent infringement, and state law claims for misappropriation of trade secrets brought against national university, its employee-scientists, and employees of major pharmaceutical company; court grants university’s and employees’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denies plaintiff’s motion for jurisdictional discovery, applying recent United States Supreme Court rulings on personal jurisdiction, and Third Circuit’s seminal ruling on personal jurisdiction over national university). 
  • Williams v. TCF National Bank, 2013 WL 708123 (N.D. Ill. February 26, 2013) (Chang) (purported national class action brought against bank for charges on overdrawn accounts; motion to stay purported class action, and to compel arbitration on an individual basis due to class action waiver, granted in all respects and bank’s contract enforced as written). 
  • AIG v. ACE INA Holdings, et al., 2011 WL 3290302 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2011) (Gettleman) (representation of a class of more than 1300 insurance companies suing AIG for RICO, common law fraud, and breach of contract; District Court certifies a Settlement Class, certifies Goldberg Kohn as Settlement Class Counsel, and grants preliminary approval, over strenuous objections, of a $450 million class action settlement, stating that Goldberg Kohn “has extensive experience in complex litigation and with class action lawsuits”, and “the credentials of whom this court regards as excellent”); 2012 WL 651727 (N.D.Ill. February 28, 2012)(final approval of $450 million class action settlement granted, over objections, stating that “the court has had extensive opportunities to evaluate Settlement Class Counsel’s [Goldberg Kohn’s] competence and has found its representation of the settlement class  to be exemplary. The opinion of counsel is thus entitled to significant weight”). 
  • Expert Microsystems, Inc. v. University of Chicago, 712 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (Shubb) (patent claims for correction of inventorship and ownership; defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of laches granted). 
  • Armer v. OpenMarket, Sprint, and Nextel, 2009 WL 3177627 (W.D. Wash. October 5, 2009)  and 2009 WL 3177623 (W.D. Wash. October 5, 2009) (Lasnik) (in purported nationwide class action against premium services “aggregator” and telecommunications wireless carrier, wireless carrier’s motion for summary judgment requiring aggregator to honor contractual duty to defend is granted, and aggregator’s claim seeking defense from wireless carrier is dismissed), and 2010 WL 1433415 (W.D. Wash. April 7, 2010) (attorneys’ fees and costs of $204,000 awarded in favor of wireless carrier due to aggregator’s breach of duty to defend). 
  • Gates v. Sprint Spectrum, 2007 WL 1455976 (D. Kan. May 10, 2007) (Murguia) (purported class action by property owner claiming that wireless carrier trespassed on property by installing cell towers without permission: after discovery on class certification issues, plaintiff drops class claims); 523 F.Supp.2d 1287 (D. Kan. 2007) (wireless carrier’s motion for summary judgment granted based on court’s decision that individual plaintiff lacked standing to sue carrier), aff’d, 2009 WL 3287540 (10th Cir. October 14, 2009). 
  • Pivoris v. TCF Financial Corp., 2007 WL 4355040 (N.D. Ill. December 7, 2007) (Pallmeyer) (motion to stay and to compel arbitration of single plaintiff dispute granted, and class action waiver enforced).  
  • Keck Garrett & Associates, Inc. v. Nextel Communications, Inc., 2007 WL 257638 (N.D. Ill. January 24, 2007) (Pallmeyer) (dispute arising under commercial agreement between vendor and wireless telecommunications company; on cross-motions for summary judgment, plaintiff’s motion is denied and defendant’s motion is granted, including an order providing for fee-shifting under the contract to the prevailing defendant in the amount of $175,000), aff’d, 517 F. 3d 476 (7th Cir. 2008). 
  • Chicago Messenger Services, Inc. v. Nextel Communications, Inc., 2003 WL 22225619 (N.D. Ill. September 24, 2003) (Norgle), and later opinion, 2005 WL 78960 (N.D. Ill. January 12, 2005) (Keys) (dispute arising between large commercial customer and wireless telecommunications company; defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s counterclaim granted, resulting in entry of money judgment in favor of defendant; later opinion awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing defendant in the amount of $191,000). 
  • Brighton Commons v. Nextel West Corp., 2003 WL 548890 (N.D. Ill. February 13, 2003) (Zagel) (purported class claims rejected, and Rule 11 sanctions awarded against plaintiff and its counsel for pursuing meritless class allegations). 
  • Levine v. Levinson, 2001 WL 289865 (N.D. Ill. March 15, 2001) (Guzman) (shareholders derivative action seeking to enjoin $226 million transaction by which NASDAQ Massachusetts business trust was to sell all of its real estate assets; summary judgment granted in favor of defendant allowing transaction to proceed, and holding that shareholder approval for the transaction was not required).  
  • Boulevard Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Philips Medical Systems Intern. B.V., 811 F.Supp. 357 (N.D. Ill. 1993) and later opinion, 827 F.Supp. 510 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (Norgle) (on cross-motions for summary judgment in case involving enforcement of international guaranty, plaintiff’s motion granted and defendant’s motion denied, awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing plaintiff in the amount of $208,000 plus subsequent award of additional $120,000). 
  • Henry v. Ryan, 775 F.Supp. 247 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (Bua) (successful challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to grand jury subpoena for blood and saliva samples served upon non-suspect without a showing of “individualized suspicion”).  
  • Sullair v. Hoodes, 672 F.Supp. 337 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (Duff) (in short-swing profits case under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against former Chairman of the Board and CEO, plainitff’s motion for summary judgment granted). 
  • SFM Corp. v. Sundstrand Corp., 102 F.R.D. 555 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (Shadur) (Rule 11 motion granted against plaintiff and its counsel as a consequence of filing a frivolous motion for summary judgment). 



  • University of Michigan Law School, J.D.

    magna cum laude

  • Tufts University, B.A., English Literature and European History,

    magna cum laude


  • Illinois
  • United States Supreme Court
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit