Tomas Linas Petkus

Open for Business
Tomas Linas Petkus: Attorney with Tobin & Muñoz, L.L.C.

Biography

Tomas Petkus joined the firm in 1992. He pioneered the adaptation of computer technology to the practice of law, and is well known for integrating computers and digital technology and graphics with litigation.

Petkus conceived and applied the use of technology innovatively for effective and persuasive use in the courtroom. The earliest courtroom uses of bar coding, light pens, databases, digital depositions, imaging, digital videography and photography in the court room can be traced back to Petkus. Due to his innovations, Tobin, Petkus & Muñoz is widely known for its trial expertise and the use of technology to enhance those skills.

Tobin, Petkus & Muñoz have transformed the way in which trials are conducted, ensuring that the cases of their clients are clearly understood and are persuasive. In doing so, they have secured substantial courtroom victories, distinguishing them as among the country's top attorneys.

Tomas Petkus received his law degree from Chicago Kent College of Law where he was a member of the Moot Court Society and winner of the senior law student moot court competition. Since passing the bar, Petkus worked on computer and technology-related matters with the Chicago Bar Association. He is a past member and chair of the computer law office technology committee at the Chicago Bar Association and was also a member of the Association's Long Range Planning Committee. He spearheaded a project on electronic filing in the Circuit Court of Cook County. He has lectured widely on the use and adaptability of computers to the practice of law, including the annual Chicago Information Technology Show. He has received numerous recognitions and awards for services rendered to the bar. He graduated from the University of Illinois with honors. He is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association, Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, Chicago Bar Association, and Baltic Bar Association. Petkus speaks, reads, and writes Lithuanian.

Certified Legal Specialties

• Arbitration, Illinois Supreme Court, 1980

Representative Cases

• Prusis v. Hunter

Classes/Seminars

• Lecturer/Presenter, Computer and Technology, Chicago Bar Association, 1993 - 1994

Professional Associations and Memberships

• Chicago Bar Association, Chairman, Committee on Law Office Technology

• Illinois State Bar Association, Member

• Federal Bar Association, Member

• Baltic Bar Association, Member

• Chicago Computer Society, Membe

Areas of Practice (1)

  • Trial Practice

Education & Credentials

University Attended:
University of Illinois, B.A., with honors, 1974
Law School Attended:
Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law, J.D., 1980
Year of First Admission:
1980
Admission:
1980, U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit; 1980, U.S. District Court Central District of Illinois; 1980, U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois; 1980, U.S. District Court Southern District of Illinois; 1980, Illinois
Languages:
Ithuanian
Birth Information:
Chicago, Illinois, 1952
Reported Cases:
Fegan v. Reid, 06 cv 6767, obtained a substantial seven figure verdict for a city traffic supervisor after a lengthy trial. Plaintiff was arrested by Reid, a police officer, because she could not 'fix' a parking ticket issued by her subordinate on his personal vehicle. Plaintiff sustained post traumatic stress disorder which became chronic. Reid also used excessive force causing serious physical injuries requiring surgery. In an effort to cover up his crimes Reid and three other police officers fabricated a cover up. The defendants attempted to have plaintiff charged with felony aggravated battery on a police officer and resisting to justify the arrest and explain plaintiff's injuries. The other defendant officers were found guilty of conspiracy for the roles they played. Chicago Pizza, Inc. v. Pizza USA, Inc., 893 N.E.2d 985 (Ill., 2008) obtained relief from the appellate court which held plaintiff established willful violations of Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act warranting injunctive relief and an award of attorney's fees. Monroe Capital, LLC, vs. CORE Business Credit, L.L.C., 08 L 36, successfully prosecuted a lawsuit against a former executive of plaintiff resulting in a substantial monetary settlement, an agreement by defendants to not compete and to disgorge plaintiff's data. Plaintiff's former executive started a competing business with another competitor. Plaintiff alleged the executive misappropriated trade secrets, confidential data and violated his employment agreement's provisions. Mejia v. Dominick, 07 cv 5923, successfully defended an elected official and management employees accused of sexually harassing the plaintiff, an intern. The plaintiff abandoned her lawsuit resulting in its dismissal with prejudice. Evidence was developed showing plaintiff praised the accused supervisor's workplace conduct and that she even expressed gratitude for the overwhelmingly positive experiences working for him. Alexander v. Sheraton, et. al., 04 L 5039, record setting result for the estate of a non-swimmer who could not be rescued before brain death because defendants' pool was open in violation of state safety statute; Yakes v. Barber, 05 L 276, et. al., successfully represented estate of patient whose differentially diagnosed endocarditis was not investigated or treated for months resulting in premature death; Monroe-Jefferson v. Korkis, et. al., 04 CH 2648, successfully defended lessee against landowner's claims of invalidity of a long term land lease; Audio v. The Little Guys, Inc., 05 CH 10265, et. al., won dismissal of anti-trust and business tort and conspiracy claims; Mearday v. City of Chicago, et al., Nos. 00 L 3227 and 98 L 10983, successfully represented the victim of police misconduct and conspiracy reaching a substantial settlement during trial; Walker, et al. v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., et al., Nos. 210A990434, et. seq., successfully represented a substantial group of African-American employees who were the victims of racially based employment discrimination; Touhy v. Simon, No. 83 P 10385, successfully represented the beneficiary of a trust who was victimized by her former trustee who breached his fiduciary duty and obtained a substantial recovery of her losses and damages; Roberts v. Spears, et al., No. 02 L13204, successfully represented estate, widow and child of patient who died due to medical negligence and obtained a substantial settlement; Shumway v. Imanage, No. 01 L 3350, successfully represented affected shareholder for claims arising from defendant's IPO and obtained substantial settlement; Busse v. UNUM Provident, et al., No. 98 L 11983, successfully represented a permanently disabled anesthesiologist in a substantial claim against his disability insurance carrier; Berry, et al., v. Segal, et al., No. 02 CH 1595; successfully represented prominent businessman and owner of Near North National Group, Michael Segal, in a multi-million dollar racketeering and defamation claim filed against him; Nelson v. CoreComm, Ltd., et al., No. 99 L 7051, successfully represented plaintiff in case involving failure of corporation to recognize shares in connection with a merger; McMahon v. DeJong, No. 99 L 646, obtained substantial settlement in a wrongful death medical malpractice claim for decedent's estate and family; Miller, et al. v. Endeavor Information Systems, et al., No. 00 L 7207, successfully represented plaintiffs' group in a large securities claim; Brown, et al. v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al., No. 98VS1441870 (Georgia), successfully represented estate and children of heavy equipment operator killed in crash in a wrongful death action; Williams v. University of Illinois, et al., No. 98 L 10732, obtained a substantial settlement in wrongful death medical malpractice claim for a 66 year old male with kidney and heart disease who died due to elective surgery; Palka v. Cook County Hospital, et al., No. 97 L 14186, successfully represented plaintiff's estate and adult children in a medical malpractice wrongful death claim; Carpenter v. Nabong, No. 94 LA 83, obtained a record setting verdict in a medical malpractice action; Swihart v. Blades Machinery Co., et al., No. 3:95-CV-605RM (Northern District Indiana), successfully defended manufacturer of grinding equipment in multimillion dollar suit by worker sustaining traumatic amputation; Torretto v. I. B. Diffusion, L.P., No. 92 C 2758, obtained a not guilty judgment for a company and its president against Title VII sexual harassment claim seeking eight million dollars alleging a hostile environment, sexual assaults and attempted rape; A. Munoz General Contractors, Inc. v. City of Chicago. No. 91 CH 1171, obtained a substantial judgment for a contractor in a major dispute with the City; Netzky v. Prudential Securities, et al., No. 94-04918 (NASD Arbitration), judgment for a sophisticated investor against brokerage firm for losses sustained for trades not performed; Moreno v. Barber Coleman Co., et al., 85 L 28175, obtained substantial settlement in wrongful death suit on behalf of estate, wife and children of employee killed in a factory explosion. Concentration: Trial of Civil Matters.
ISLN:
904465073

Payment Information

Fixed Hourly Rates
Available
Other Information
Free initial consultation, Fixed fees available

Peer Reviews

This lawyer does not have peer reviews.

Client Reviews Write a Review

Location

  • Chicago, IL
    Three First National Plaza , 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 1950
    Chicago, IL 60602

    312-450-3141 Phone
    Get Directions

Contact Tomas Linas Petkus

Contact Information:

312-450-3141  Phone

312-641-5220  Fax

www.barristers.com/About/Tomas-Petkus.shtml

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on 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 Martindale 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.