Attorney Rebecca Monen

Rebecca Monen joined the Wallace Miller team as a personal injury attorney in 2025. Before becoming a lawyer, she worked in the nonprofit sector for ten years with a focus on youth advocacy. From her nonprofit work to her law practice, Rebecca has dedicated her career to helping people seek justice and move forward from harm.

You initially worked in the nonprofit field. Tell me a little bit about that.

I went to college at IU in Indiana and then I moved to Boston for AmeriCorps, which is kind of like the domestic version of the Peace Corps. That’s how I got started working in nonprofits. I was doing what’s called development, which is fundraising and soliciting new donors and creating events and all of that stuff, as well as marketing communications.

I moved to Chicago in 2011 and worked in nonprofits up until I went to law school, mostly youth-based nonprofits. I focused my career on helping people, but after about a decade in the nonprofit field, I had reached a director-level position, and I felt like I could do more in another field.

I knew that whatever that different thing was, I still wanted to help people. I was a political science major and I’ve always been interested in history and politics. I always wanted to go to law school, but I never felt like that was for me—that was for other people. I don’t have attorneys in my family, I don’t come from “the right side of the tracks,” I didn’t know anything about the legal field. So for me, it always felt like something only other people could do.

But with a whole decade of professional experience behind me, I wasn’t intimidated the way I was when I was younger. I thought, “Well, why not me? I’m smart, I want to do good, I want to learn this, I want to get this degree. The only impediment is me. I want to do it, so let’s do it.” And now here we are.

What was it like making that transition?

It was hard and scary. You really uproot your life. I studied and took the LSAT and did the applications. Then because I was doing the part-time evening program, law school took me four years while also working full time. And then I had to study for the bar. So it was over half a decade for me between deciding I wanted to go to law school and becoming a lawyer.

I’m still young in my legal career, and I’m coming in and having to learn new things—which is exciting, but it’s also scary. With that said, I am glad I waited to go to law school until later. I was a much better student and I have a much better handle on things. And now with more than a decade of experience working with people who do need advocacy and support, I can bring that understanding into the way I want to be an attorney.

How does your previous work in nonprofits help in being a lawyer?

Because of my previous career, I’ve had the opportunity to interact with all different types of people. Working in fundraising meant that I had to communicate with board members and high-level donors, but I was also talking to the people who run the programs and going to their events, and hanging out with the kids we serve and learning how to talk to their parents, and then being able to switch and talk to the donors again about the experience. I learned different ways to communicate the same thing to different types of people and that’s been really useful.

Also, working in the nonprofit space, on any given day it’s pretty much always all hands on deck. Everyone’s doing a million different things at once. If we’re collecting supplies and someone says, “We just had a huge donation, we need everyone to help,” everyone goes and helps. It doesn’t matter what your level is in the hierarchy.

That not only helped me get really organized, but also put me in the mindset that we’re part of a team. I’m always willing to help out, even if it’s not part of my job description. Coming from that background, I’m very community minded. And I’m glad I’ve had other experiences outside of the legal field before jumping in.

What has been the most rewarding thing about being a lawyer so far?

Knowing that I can be a voice for individuals who probably don’t feel like they have a voice or that no one has their back. Something has happened to them and they deserve justice for that, and I can be the access to that justice. I can be the one that helps them.

If someone’s injured, you can’t ever take that back. Money doesn’t undo what happened. But what we’re trying to do is make sure everyone is able to get what they deserve. And if something bad has happened to them, they deserve to be seen and to be heard and to be represented. They deserve access to the care and treatment and flexibility they need to recover, which money makes possible.

Especially right now, I think there’s so many people who feel very hopeless and scared. As attorneys, we can be on the front lines of helping people and defending them. It’s very rewarding to know that our work is directly impacting people in a positive way.

Can you tell me about a time when you thought to yourself, this is making a difference?

I was working on a case a couple years ago of a client who was injured on a worksite. They were working on a train that was down in a tunnel and the train took off unauthorized, and they were on top of the train in the tunnel in the dark. They sustained some physical injuries but they also had a huge amount of emotional trauma.

We met with them and their spouse multiple times, and they were the most lovely people. They were such a good, hardworking family-oriented person. And this one incident almost destroyed all of that, because they’re hurt and can’t be on their feet that long and they have bad PTSD.

But we ended up being able to get their family a very substantive settlement. Obviously that doesn’t make up for their injuries, but it meant that they were set up financially and the children would be provided for. It meant they could take as much time as they needed to figure out their next career steps.

It’s an example of how sometimes really bad things happen to good people, and they need someone to help. You can’t correct the situation, but you can put them in the best position to move forward from it.

What would you say to someone considering reaching out about a personal injury case?

I would say, do it—there’s no reason not to. There are no upfront fees at our firm and consultation is always free. Worst case scenario, a case might not get picked up, but our team will always be happy to talk to you. Even if they can’t help, they can point you in another direction, to someone else who’s better suited for your case, or towards what your next steps might be.

I can understand how it would be intimidating for someone to reach out to an attorney. Maybe they have some shame related to their case, or they feel uncomfortable, or there are sensitive medical issues. But it’s kind of like going to the doctor—the doctor has seen it all. They don’t judge. Attorneys should be viewed in kind of the same way. We really are here to help. We’re here to listen. It’s our job.

Learn more about Rebecca at her full bio page.

David A. Neiman joined the Wallace Miller team as a partner in December 2024. Focusing on mass tort and class action litigation, he works to make sure that everyone has fair opportunities and equal access to justice. He is currently serving on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for federal hair relaxer litigation and on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for the parallel state court hair relaxer litigation in Cook County, Illinois.

What was your path to working in law?

The decision to concentrate my practice in personal injury and consumer protection law has been driven by a desire to help and do something that will better my community. Starting in high school, I was active in charitable organizations, volunteering both during and after school with my classmates that had developmental disabilities. That led to involvement with a wonderful organization called Lambs Farm, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping people with developmental disabilities lead productive, happy lives.

My legal work is driven by the same desire. I’ve been very fortunate in my life, but I realize that not everyone has had the same opportunities. And so it’s my goal to level the playing fields by giving everyone, regardless of their background, access to our judicial system in their time of need.

How do you seek justice in personal injury, mass torts, and class actions?

Oftentimes we get introduced to clients who are at a low point in their life. Almost always it’s a situation that’s beyond their control, and almost always it’s a situation where, whether or not people like to ask for help, it is needed.

And although we can only provide a limited scope of help—explaining the legal process and navigating the murky waters of a lawsuit—we’re able to try to bring some clarity to their pending legal action and, in the end, hopefully make the future a little bit more promising for them and their loved ones.

You have a strong background in the legal field. What has surprised you over the course of your career? What do you think people misunderstand about the law?

Lawyers don’t always have the best reputation. Sometimes because of how they’re portrayed in the media, other times because of successful efforts of tort reform advocates.

But truth be told, the peers that I have been fortunate enough to work with, including those here at Wallace Miller—we really do care about the people that we represent, and the advocacy that we provide to our clients is sincere and real. It’s based on a real legitimate interest in helping our community and our clients. We want to benefit everybody who’s been impacted by the preventable injuries sustained as a result of someone else’s negligence or intentional conduct.

Are there specific moments in your work when you feel like you’re making a difference?

To me, justice is not always success in a courtroom. It’s providing the understanding to a client that through our collective efforts, we’re creating a safer and better world for everybody. With some of my clients, not only have we had success in court, but we’ve seen success in the state legislature, passing laws that protect people. And you can see, through the efforts and through the hardships that people have experienced, there’s been a tangible outcome that’s making our community a safer place.

In your experience, what makes a good plaintiffs’ lawyer?

There are a lot of typical answers. I think that a good lawyer can have a variety of different attributes, and I don’t think that it’s ever one person that makes or breaks a case. It’s a team of lawyers with a variety of different personalities and skillsets that move the case forward.

Throughout my career, one thing I’ve learned is the importance of a team approach. Anybody who thinks that they can singlehandedly take on some of the biggest companies in the world and defeat them—that’s someone with a huge ego. And if that’s not in check, it can be dangerous. The types of cases that we work on require a variety of different skills, and I don’t think it’s possible for one person to possess them all. And so, in order to be successful, you have to realize your strengths and your weaknesses and put together a team that allows people to work together to provide the best quality service to the clients that we have the honor to represent.

You’re currently working on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the hair relaxer litigation. Tell me a little bit more about that role.

For the hair relaxer case, we’re working in two parallel proceedings. With the sheer size and scope of the multidistrict litigation in federal court, the courts have consolidated matters before a single judge and selected a smaller group of lawyers to do work that all plaintiffs can benefit from.

I was honored to have been appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and the Marketing Committee for the federal lawsuit, which means I am one of the lawyers who gets to get their hands dirty and do some of the work that benefits the greater group as we move through the litigation.

I’m also on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for the litigation in Cook County, Illinois. In that capacity, I’m often involved in handling communications with the court and with the defendants, and I’m doing a lot of broad administrative work that’s getting us ready through the litigation process and hopefully at some point ready for trial.

The end goal is to get a just resolution for our clients. The shared experience of being appointed to leadership in both state and federal court has been really rewarding—I feel like a pivotal part of the process as we get these cases through the system.

You joined Wallace Miller as a partner a few months ago. What made you want to work at the firm?

One of the things I mentioned before about what makes a good lawyer is teamwork and a team approach. I was honored to have the opportunity to work with Edward Wallace, Mark Miller, and Molly Condon Wells on the hair relaxer litigation, and what really impressed me was the way that the firm approaches these cases. I think that my personality and skillset match up with those lawyers particularly well.

In addition to that, I had the pleasure of meeting other firm lawyers through our joint efforts in legal organizations including the American Association for Justice. After working with all the impressive lawyers and staff at the firm, I’ve come to really appreciate their views, their perspectives, and the way that they approach their cases. Joining the firm was a great opportunity for me. And so, when the opportunity was presented, I jumped at it.

What do you do outside of work that informs your career?

Charitable work and volunteering are things that I’ve been interested in for a long time. As I said before, I’m very proud of where I came from. Both of my parents are business owners, they’re independently successful, and they provided me with a number of opportunities. I was very fortunate to be in a position where I could succeed in high school, get a college education, and then go to law school. And I had really good role models and people who guided me through that process.

I am very aware that not all people have had the same opportunities as me, and I feel that it’s my job to do what I can to level the playing field. This motivated me to join a legal aid clinic early on in my career that had just started in Highland Park. Years later, I became Chairman of the Board of that organization. It was an honor to see a small legal aid clinic grow and blossom and I take great pride to have been affiliated with that organization.

Most recently, I’ve been involved with Lambs Farm. Lambs Farm is a campus for developmentally disabled adults that provides housing, recreation, employment opportunities both on and outside the campus. It’s a really great organization that’s been around for a very long time, and I want to make sure it stays around for a very long time.

As a lawyer, you’re only as good as your willingness to learn and improve. So, in addition to charitable work, I make sure that I’m involved in legal organizations that help me to continue to do the work for my clients at a high level. With that in mind, my work for the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA) and the American Association for Justice (AAJ) is really meaningful to me as well. Aside from providing myself and other lawyers with educational opportunities, these two organizations do a ton of lobbying on the state and federal level. There are always forces outside of our control that try to enact legislation that would inhibit our ability to protect our clients and retain the right to trial by jury. So, I’m really proud of the work that I do for those organizations, because I really do think it’s impactful and makes a tangible difference to how we function as a society and as a business in the practice of law.

Learn more about David on his bio page. Interested in working with Lambs Farm? Find out more on their website.

Attorney Kathleen B. McGivney joined the mass tort and personal injury teams at Wallace Miller in 2024. Through plaintiffs’ litigation, she works to make sure that individuals harmed by the actions of others get a chance to tell their stories and fight for compensation. She currently works on the hair relaxer, paraquat, and Suboxone litigations. 

What made you want to be a lawyer?

I always knew that I wanted to be a lawyer. I don’t think I ever wanted to be anything else, you know, a journalist or a detective—I come from a family of lawyers, and specifically the women in my family inspired me to want to become a lawyer. 

My mom, who grew up in Chicago, was the first person in her family to go to law school, which inspired other family members to go as well. It was notable that she not only got her college degree, but also decided to go onto law school and try to break into this field that was pretty much dominated by men at the time.  

I’ve always admired my mother’s work ethic in addition to her ability to raise two daughters—she knew what she wanted to do, and she did it. And I found that to be a helpful path, to follow in her footsteps.  

Was your experience during law school different from your mother’s experience?

They were totally different. Both of my parents obviously encouraged my sister and me to work hard, but now on a societal level, women are encouraged to go and conquer the world. And back when my mom was on the same path, many women didn’t even go onto college. It just wasn’t encouraged at the time. And so she and other women like her really cleared the path for younger women like me to make it and enter the field. 

She does a different kind of work than me, she’s an attorney for the state government. But she gets it and often has good advice for me about how to handle certain day-to-day issues that come up in the field.

How did you end up working in mass torts and personal injury?

In law school, the firm I worked at specialized in personal injury and medical malpractice. I got a taste not only for litigation and big cases and trials, but for plaintiffs’ work specifically. I really enjoyed the fast-paced nature of it, and I loved the people I worked with.

I got to assist with a few trials, and I liked the thrill of things changing at the last minute, or the judge having a set understanding of the law and having to change their mind. And the outcome was positive in those trials, so we were able to help people get justice for themselves and their family after something terrible had happened to them. It’s fulfilling to be able to help provide that sense of closure.

I always knew I wanted to be a lawyer, but that solidified for me that I wanted to go into litigation and be in the courtroom. 

Why do you think mass tort and personal injury is important?

Sometimes when bad things happen to people, it’s not necessarily anyone’s fault. But when it is, it’s important for us as a society to help the people harmed to get compensation and have their case heard in court. It’s important for people to be able to tell their story.

It’s a very good part of America—the strength of our justice system, specifically our civil justice system. In a lot of cases, the best way you can hold companies and powerful people and organizations accountable is by fighting for financial consequences.

How do you stay motivated when working on difficult cases?

It’s important to have a sense of perseverance and moving things forward. As lawyers, we can’t prevent the things that happen to people—we respond after the fact, after the terrible thing has already happened. And that can be heavy at times, but it’s important to remember that we need to keep moving forward. We need to see what we can do for these people now. And that’s the goal, at the end of the day—to keep moving things forward for our clients and their families.

To find out more about Kathleen, check out her full bio page here.

Edward A. Wallace and Mark R. Miller founded the Wallace Miller law firm on November 1, 2021. Prior to that, they worked together for almost two decades across class actions, mass torts, personal injury cases, and appellate advocacy. We sat down with them to learn more about how they started the firm, the work that goes into successful plaintiffs’ advocacy, and what motivates their legal work. 

 

Edward, you built your law practice in mass tort and personal injury. Was there a case or moment that stands out to you as crucial to your career?

Edward: I had an interesting journey, because I worked at a relatively large defense firm on all types of cases, defending companies and professionals. I was mentored by some phenomenal lawyers, some that I still have as friends and hold in the highest esteem. I give them a ton of credit for working with me and mentoring me in all the right ways. 

But I knew that I wasn’t the right fit for defense, and that I wanted to be on this side of the law, bringing cases on behalf of those who, in many cases, could not otherwise afford representation.  I also liked the idea that a plaintiffs’ lawyer could hold people and companies to account for their wrongdoing. And then I got that opportunity, beginning in February 2000, to work on the plaintiffs’ side. Being thrown into very challenging cases and given the opportunity to figure out some of it for myself allowed me to gravitate to where I am.

Mark, you’ve worked on diverse types of cases over your career, from mass torts to class action to appellate advocacy. Where did you start out, and how has your role evolved?

Mark: With me, as with most attorneys, your approach to cases in the beginning is, both by necessity and by function, more project-oriented. As a young attorney you’re given tasks to do, you try to do the best that you can on those tasks, and you don’t necessarily have a say in the big picture or in larger strategic decisions in a case. 

But as you get more gray hair and as you’ve been a member of the bar and doing this type of work for longer, you get to have more of a say in the general strategy of cases—and the practice group in general, as opposed to just concentrating on doing the job. And at this point it’s both a blessing and a curse to be in a position where I’m not only doing the day-to-day stuff—because some of that is very interesting—but it’s also nice to be able to rely on other people to help you. 

How were the two of you first introduced?

Mark: I was introduced to Ed at our former firm through a law school colleague and friend.  I took the meeting because I saw it as an opportunity to do interesting, complex, and meaningful work. At the time, I was working on the defense side and felt like I was sort of in a rut from handling the same type of case over and over and over again. 

And in the end, joining Ed turned out to be what it was promised to be, in that it was a chance to work on high-stakes, nationwide, complex litigation. You’re still a smaller cog in a bigger machine in this type of practice, but you know what you’re fighting for is important, and you have the opportunity to try to bring about some good. 

Edward: From day one what impressed me, and I tell people this all the time, including all our new hires, was that Mark would show up at seven dressed in a suit and tie, and stay dressed in a suit and tie until at least seven that evening. That was back in the days when you couldn’t go home and do remote work. 

And from day one, what he had was a quiet strength that I can only wish I had. He was incredibly substantive and careful and thoughtful, and I respected that. I felt very comfortable when he was given significant responsibility at the firm, because I could rest easy knowing that our clients were in good hands. 

There’s no better feeling as a lawyer entrusted with something than to be able to turn to another lawyer and know that they’ve got it covered as well. And not only do they have it covered, but they might see it in a different way or a better way for the client. I could really rely on Mark for that, and I can rely on him for that to this day. That’s what I saw in him, and that’s what I consider partner material. 

You were both partners at your former firm. What made you realize that you could effectively start your own firm together?

Edward: Mark and I were friends, and also, at the end of the day, we saw enough differences in each other that actually turned out to be complementary. Mark could see pieces of a case that I couldn’t, and vice versa. And when you put those two things together, it leads to mutual respect, and ultimately it’s better for the client. And so for me, when I was deciding what the next chapter of my career was going to be, it was a very easy decision to see if we could make it work. 

Mark: And when I found out that Ed was leaving the old firm, I reflected on the fact that throughout the 15 years that I’d been working there, the cases that I most enjoyed working on and the moments that I relished the most as an attorney were on cases where I was working hand-in-hand with Ed. So, it seemed like the natural thing to do, to reach out to him and to see if I could join him on his next journey. 

What would you say makes your counterpart a good partner? What have you learned, working with each other as leaders of the firm?

Mark: I’ve worked with Ed for 18 years now, so this isn’t something that I’ve only realized in the last three years. But what makes Ed a great partner to work with is his diligence, his creativity, his ethics and hard work. He’s one of the most straightforward people that I’ve known, to other attorneys, to opposing counsel, to juries, to everybody. He’s always there for the firm, and always has a reasoned and intelligent response, no matter what the situation. 

Edward: I’m glad you feel that way, Mark, and that’s awesome to hear. I would say that Mark gives me the freedom to be creative and sometimes think wildly out of the box. And then he’s able to challenge me in ways that allow me to see other lanes on the highway that ultimately lead to a better result. That’s massive. 

Second, when I talked earlier about his quiet strength—I know he’s got it covered.

And last, because we’re humans, we are far from perfect. Forgiveness probably comes more from him towards me, because I’m probably the one that’s a little out there sometimes. He can forgive me when we encounter challenges. And because of his example of forgiveness, there’s a certain amount of humility that allows me to have, while still having the freedom and the rope to do it. 

Mark: At the end of the day, in any good partnership, you’re looking for somebody who has personality traits that complement yours, and who can step in and accomplish things you could never accomplish on your own. That’s the heart of a partnership. 

What was it like in the first days of Wallace Miller?

Mark: When I joined the firm, I had no idea how much administrative work is involved in getting a law firm off the ground, so the very initial days were blissful ignorance. But that changed pretty quickly. 

It’s been three years now—it’s amazing how much work there was to do, and we’ve come to understand how much work is still to be done. But we’re in a position where we have a better viewpoint to see the bigger issues and what needs to be done and where we’re going. 

You started this firm with a core group of people that you’d both worked with for years. What has it been like, growing from that to more than 60 employees today?

Edward: The thing that kept me most comfortable in some pretty trying times at the beginning was the fact that there was such a good foundation of people around us. We knew they saw things the same way we did, and not only had a vision, but would also do the hard work to create that vision. That really helped us. 

We want to make sure that the initial commitments that we all made to each other can still be kept, even when we’re adding new people. 

Mark: I never thought that we’d grow at the rate we have. But it’s been a natural progression based on the influx of cases and the need to support those cases and do the best we can by those clients. 

You do your best to keep the culture that you have. One of the reasons I joined the firm was a culture where everybody respects each other and works well together. When you grow to the size the firm is now, it can be hard to maintain that. But you build it on a strong foundation, where you know that the people you started the firm with share that culture and share those beliefs. You do your best to hire people who echo that, and you hope that you don’t get large enough where you lose it. 

But it’s something we work on daily. We do our best to make sure that our core beliefs are held by everyone else that works here. And I think we’ve done a good job of that, but we’ll keep checking in. 

What advice would you give to someone starting their own practice?

Edward: To have the appropriate amount of insanity to think that you can really do it. And that once you do it and you’re entrusted with that responsibility, to make sure you carry it through. If you’re going to go, you better go all in, because there’s a lot of people counting on you. 

Mark: I’d echo that, and also say—remember that it’s not just about you and your practice, it’s about putting your clients and the people you work with first.  

Was there a moment that made you pause and think, “We’re building something extraordinary here”?

Mark: For me, that’s the Huskey verdict in the transvaginal mesh MDL in the Southern District of West Virginia. It was a bellwether trial in the transvaginal mesh litigation involving a product type that most other attorneys in the country were not willing to take to trial. And with the great work of our co-counsel we stepped up and did it, and we were able to obtain a jury verdict for a deserving client and her husband. And then we were able to uphold that verdict on appeal in the fourth circuit.  

And through that we were able to, in my opinion, change the course of the litigation and provide the opportunity for tens of thousands of women to obtain a better value in those types of cases. That trial was long ago at our former firm, but it embodies what I think you are asking. 

What’s next for Wallace Miller?

Mark: I’m looking forward to continued growth, both in the practice areas we’ve traditionally focused on and the new areas we and our colleagues are pursuing and building. I’m looking forward, of course, to success in our clients’ cases, but also to the other attorneys at the firm growing and taking on greater responsibilities. 

As a firm, I think there are fantastic things coming and the people we’ve assembled here are more than capable of all the growth that we plan and hope for. 

Edward: I’ll end it on a funny note and say that if and when I decide to pass the Xbox controller to the next generation, I hope the outcome is better than the transfer from Urban Meyer to Ryan Day. But I plan to be here for a while and Ryan Day isn’t, so it’s all good.   

Learn more about Mark’s and Edward’s backgrounds in their attorney bios and check out Edward’s interview on WGN’s Let’s Get Legal.

Julia Ozello joined the Wallace Miller team as an attorney in 2024. She focuses on consumer protection, antitrust, and class action litigation and is currently working on the Blue Cross Blue Shield, Subaru, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Ford transmission cases.

What was your path to practicing law?

“I went to Case Western for law school, mainly for their international law program. That was the intent at the time—but Covid changed things. 

My favorite classes weren’t necessarily lecture based classes—I enjoyed the International Law Lab and the Death Penalty Lab. The labs at Case Western are basically practical writing seminars. An outside source comes to the professor and asks for a memo or a brief, and the professor gives the project to one of their students. Those are the classes that stick out for me- they were very useful experiences in terms of working for an attorney while in school, as well as writing.

I graduated in May of 2020. Normally you would take the bar in July, but because of Covid I couldn’t take it until October, and the admission ceremony did not take place until 2021. 

Soon after I was admitted to the bar, I ended up getting a job at a nonprofit doing consumer protection work. I was initially hired to work on mortgage and foreclosure issues, but I ended up working heavily on the new (at the time) Early Resolution Program to assist pro bono litigants in defending themselves against debt collectors. Through that process, I often interacted with the court systems and worked with clients to defend and settle their cases. That was a good fit for me and eventually I moved to a consumer protection law firm to do similar work. 

I’ve been doing various types of consumer protection since law school. I mainly worked in criminal defense during law school because I found it really interesting and you see how much it matters, similar to the type of work we do here. But being a criminal lawyer is incredibly hard, both mentally and physically. This is different work, but it’s been a relatively smooth transition. And it worked in that I was able to find something that is both interesting and fulfilling. 

What does consumer protection mean?

Basically, if you have an issue with any product, or a product is not performing the way you thought it would, you may have a claim against the manufacturer or seller. It could be cars, it could be solar panels, it could be something you bought at the 99-cent store. It could be related to price fixing, someone changing the prices on you, or someone charging you more than they should be. It’s a really broad area of law. 

You mentioned the 99-cent store. Why does litigating issues with such small amounts of money matter?

The defense side brings this up a lot, because there are many statutes where the consumer doesn’t need to have actually paid any money to have some kind of claim. Ultimately, a valid claim is a valid claim. You’re holding companies accountable, even for things that feel small. 

For a lot of consumer protection statutes, that’s a big part of the intent behind them. It’s meant to be a deterrent or to protect consumers in some way, such as advertising and marketing regulations. But it’s basically lawsuits like these that protect people from fraud or abuse by anyone who may be trying to take advantage of consumers, whether they’re salespeople, merchants, and manufacturers. 

Tell me more about how that works in practice.

In terms of class actions, there’s a lot of stuff that might not seem like a big deal. For example, within the past few years, there was a case against Walmart about misrepresenting the price of items. As in, you check the price on the shelf and it says three dollars, and then you go to the checkout and scan the item, and it actually says four dollars. 

That might not seem like an issue to the average person, but while each violation might not have a large impact, it does add up—for both the consumer and for the company’s profits. Under Illinois consumer fraud law, it’s illegal to have deceptive pricing practices. What Walmart did was illegal, and it adds up. 

There are a lot of nuanced laws out there that apply to things that might not seem like an issue to a normal person. So, if you encounter something unfair, even if it seems weird or small—if it stands out as a little odd, I would talk to a lawyer about it. Attorneys who work on a contingency fee will look into your case free of charge, so there’s no harm in talking to them. 

What aspects of consumer protection practice do you enjoy most?

I like briefing and I like doing discovery. Briefs are a way of analyzing the other side’s argument—figuring out what they said wrong and what your counterarguments are going to be. That means analyzing their brief, deciding which points you need to address and which ones you don’t, and then figuring out your counterarguments and doing the research to back it up. I like doing that research—of course, it becomes much more stressful when it’s on a deadline, but I like learning new things and crafting arguments.  

That’s where discovery comes in. For discovery, you’re getting into the meat of a case—actually figuring out what’s going on and seeing how that works. You’re really finding out what happened and finding out if you have a good argument. 

Discovery and briefing are usually the most expensive parts of litigation, the most time consuming, et cetera. But you get to be your own investigative detective.  

After law school and your experience at a nonprofit, why did you decide to work in this field?

Working in the area of consumer protection, it feels like you’re helping people a lot of the time, especially on the plaintiff’s side. That’s a big part of it—I feel like I’m having a positive impact on people. I feel like I’m making a difference. 

And it feels good to sue larger institutions that have caused harm. If you’re someone who likes to stick it to the man, for lack of a better term, that can feel very rewarding—it feels like you’re doing something worthwhile. 

How do you stay motivated when a case does get difficult?

Ideally you have a case that, even when things are tough, you still have a good argument. If you’ve been doing your due diligence and keeping up with everything, you’re able to counter the defense’s arguments. You can also get support from your colleagues and from senior attorneys at the firm, and that’s helpful. 

And in any case, you want to keep in mind that justice looks different for each client. You have to listen to your clients’ needs and find out what the best outcome is for them. Sometimes that’s a court case. Sometimes that’s a change in the company’s policies. Sometimes that’s a settlement. That’s also a victory, if it works for your client.  

To learn more about Julia, check out her full bio here.

Attorney Kristina J. Anderson joined the Wallace Miller team in 2024 as an administrative mass torts attorney. She focuses on mass tort and personal injury litigations and works with clients to streamline the litigation and settlement process. We sat down for an interview with her to hear more about the her work, her background, and what makes a good attorney.

How did you choose to become a lawyer?

I’ve wanted to be a lawyer since forever. I went to Butler University in Indy, and I did their mock trial program for a year. The year I did it, we went to several competitions, and I won a Best Attorney award at one of them. 

I really wanted to move forward with it, but I was really burnt out on school. So I took five years off and worked at different places. And then I ended up in a focus group for a lawsuit, which made me realize how much I missed it. The way the attorneys asked you questions—I wanted to know more about what they were thinking and why those questions mattered. 

So I went and applied at my last firm as a legal assistant, and I worked my way up through their social security disability department and then moved to focus on personal injury cases. And then I went to law school at night while I worked with their primary litigator full-time. That’s how I got here. 

What do you like most about working in the legal field?

It truly is a field that helps people. That’s why I like mass torts too. Because single event cases—I think it’s a common misconception that single event cases are super hard and mass tort cases are easy. The reality is that to work up a single mass tort case for a bellwether trial and to work up a single event personal injury case like a car crash takes the same amount of work from the lawyer. But in the end, the single event case is only going to get some form of compensation or justice for that one client. Whereas a positive bellwether trial could go a long way to getting a great settlement for 30,000 people or more. 

You’re an administrative mass torts attorney—how do you define that position?

I look at it as someone who’s here with the paralegals, to be not just a resource for them, to help them answer questions that only an attorney can answer, but also to be here for the clients—because sometimes a client just needs to talk to their attorney.  

That’s what my focus is, but it also helps the other attorneys. If I can take away emails from other attorneys’ inboxes, they can focus on doing the work for their cases. 

How did you end up in this role?

Attorneys come from all different backgrounds and experiences. But I think the best attorneys are the ones who were case managers and paralegals first, and then went to law school. Because it’s so much easier to understand what a paralegal is doing day-to-day, which you as an attorney don’t always see.  

Having done that, I think this job is a great fit for me, because I’m able to say to a paralegal, “I get where you’re coming from, I know why you’re asking this. This is the lawyer answer, and this is why.”

What else makes someone a good attorney?

Caring. Not just about your ethical duties or the legal work, but truly caring about the clients. For example, I’ve talked to Sarah* every three months for the last five years. I need to know how it ends for Sarah. And at this point, Sarah knows my dog’s name, and I know where her granddaughter is going to college.  

Seeing it through to the end and making sure she gets that last settlement is important to me. And I think caring about the people is what matters. In the end, it’s what helps me sleep at night. It’s important to know who you’re fighting for. 

What insight does working across litigations at Wallace Miller give you?

I get to talk to clients about all sorts of different issues and help guide them through the process. Ideally, if I’m doing my job right, we can keep things rolling on settlements. There are a lot of places where the process can be made better and simpler. 

Having that person who can walk the clients through basic details as the litigation wraps up makes it so much easier, and it helps us grow. I can predict if we’re going to need another paralegal or another intake person in a few months and that can keep us from being overwhelmed. We just have to watch the process. 

What do you think makes a good law firm?

Definitely caring about the clients, wanting to make a difference—but also how they structure things. Making sure that the people who make the decisions for the firm don’t live in an echo chamber of people who are just going to agree with them because they’re the boss. So having those disagreements and being able to still be on the same side and working towards the same goal is important.  

And having diverse voices in leadership roles really matters, because it makes things so much better for everybody. You have to acknowledge that problems happen, and you’re trying to fix the problems and do good things. You want everybody to feel like we’re all on the same page and we’re all working towards the same goal. 

What advice would you give a new client at Wallace Miller?

I would say please be patient. It’s a long process—in the Camp Lejeune case, the attorney who wrote the law has been working with the same client for decades to try and get justice. And then eventually the law got passed and now, finally, they’re getting their day in court. 

For a lot of the process, what’s happening is that the attorneys are reviewing documents, going through discovery, and getting the evidence we need to build a strong case. That takes time, and effort, and we get a lot of pushback from the defense attorneys. And even once a settlement is announced, we need to figure out how to register everybody who’s entitled to a payout, divide up the money based on injuries, and work with a settlement special master to make sure that the distribution process is fair and as quick as possible. 

Everything takes time, and it’s absolutely okay to call for updates. But please be patient. And please, every time you change your email or your phone number or your address, let us know. 

* Name has been changed to protect client privacy.

Read more about Kristina and listen to her interview on WGN’s Let’s Get Legal on October 12.

Debbie A. Pritts is a legal nurse consultant at Wallace Miller. With over 20 years of clinical nursing experience, Debbie helps attorneys gain a complete understanding of the complex medical aspects of their cases. She is a past president of the American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants and the chair of the American Bar Association Nursing & Allied Healthcare Professionals Taskforce.  

Tell me more about your path to becoming a legal nurse consultant.

I always thought I would be a nurse. When I finished nursing school, I took a job at an inner-city hospital in Pittsburgh. I was assigned to an inpatient unit split with one wing comprised of oncology patients, and the other wing medical-surgical patients.  

I loved oncology. Emotionally it was a difficult floor to work on. At that time, I was a twenty-year-old, beginning my professional experience in the workforce. It was a gynecological oncology unit, so I had female patients and some of them were young mothers battling a diagnosis of cancer. And I remember being overwhelmed sometimes at the sadness of what they were facing in their lives, with their spouse, their children, and their health. It was difficult to deal with, but it was so rewarding to be able to care for my patients and meet others providing them physical and emotional support. 

As a nurse, I found support not only from my co-workers but also my family. I recall my husband one time saying, “Why don’t you just take a job somewhere else that’s not so emotionally draining? You can get a job anywhere.” And I responded, “Because I love what I do.” I just absolutely loved clinical nursing.  

Why did you shift to working in law?

Initially, I received a postcard in the mail offering a course for legal nurse consulting. At the time I put it to the side, thinking I might be interested in the future. Sometime later, while working in a smaller community hospital, I faced a sudden layoff with many of their staff. 

I had no intention of giving up clinical nursing. But the way it played out opened this other door and I realized I enjoyed doing this too. I have always had an interest in research, new treatments, new medicines for my patients, and wanted to learn more. While working clinically, I was also raising a family—it was difficult to get it all done. 

When I worked clinically, I was researching to better myself in my clinical role. Now, I am still learning while working, but the vast amount of knowledge I have gained, in a variety of areas, is just unbelievable. It has been and still is an incredible experience. 

How does your perspective as a nurse impact the way you look at a case?

An attorney is looking at the case from a legal point of view, whereas I’m looking at things from a medical point of view—together we collaborate to discuss all possible scenarios of what occurred. Whether on a medical malpractice, personal injury, or product liability case, we will build the best case for our client. But we are also considering what the defense angle might be—it’s like playing chess. We must anticipate what the opposing counsel’s strategy is and recognize the defensible portion of the case, if there is one, then discuss how to refute that.  

With my experience and knowledge, I can understand and explain the medical events—what should have happened, and what may be a complication or a confounder versus a breach in the standard of care or a fault of a product.

What advantage does that provide when working on a lawsuit?

I frequently participate in our calls with our expert witnesses or treating providers. The attorneys recognize and appreciate the value I bring to these calls, as experts are normally more at ease in speaking with another healthcare professional as opposed to an attorney alone. 

My mind thinks differently than the attorneys’. So when we are speaking with an expert, I think about the scenario of events, or the underlying condition, and I ask questions more intuitively because I understand many of the medical details, while the attorneys might add, “Well, let’s look at this from a legal viewpoint.” I help facilitate the conversation, putting the expert at ease and opening the dialogue to gain a better understanding of the facts. 

Has working in law impacted your perception of the healthcare industry?

I’m always trying to stay current with what is going on in the medical world—new medications, new devices, updates in procedures, reported complaints about devices or drugs—to assist in case development for the firm, and to be an advocate for the public in general.  

I worked in oncology for so many years, and while working clinically, I remember thinking, “Oh my, I can’t wait until there’s another drug on the market,” so that when someone’s first line of chemo was no longer efficacious, there was something else to offer them. The hope of having another form of treatment was always in the back of my mind. 

Now, since working in the legal field, I see how some drugs or devices may have been approved too swiftly, or after approval you think, “How did that ever get approved?” You learn a corporation had maybe not been fully transparent on all results from clinical trials, or maybe trials appear to have been stopped early because they didn’t like an outcome, and that outcome was important for people who might decide to use that drug or medical device. 

This is why I try to stay up on what is being reported, to get an early look for my family, myself, my friends, and people in general. If a family member or friend with a chronic illness calls and asks what I think, is this a new treatment that feels safe? How can I best guide them? Even though I’m not clinically active now, I’m still caring for people, in a different way. 

What do you value most about working in this role?

Being an advocate. A nurse assesses patients’ needs and provides physical care, monitoring, emotional support, and knowledge to educate their patients—but they must also be an advocate for the patient to allow them to make critical decisions that impact their lives.  

For example, if my patient was asked to consider participating in a clinical trial, and by participating it meant she might suffer some unwanted side effects that could impair her ability to care for small children or an aging parent, as a nurse, you have to advocate for your patient—that yes, while it’s very important to participate in clinical trials to further knowledge, not everybody can contribute in that way, and that’s okay. You can find another way to help. 

There are always ways to advocate. I still advocate for people in my current role, for those patients who are now clients of ours, by helping to ease their mind while taking a step towards legal action—which is hard to do. I support and educate our clients and guide them through a process that can be difficult. They have already faced a health issue, and now they have to maneuver through the legal system because of it, which is something they never really anticipated. I play a crucial role in that. I feel like I’m still helping clients and patients, just in a unique way. 

Hear what Debbie has to say about how medical records impact your lawsuit and the importance of organ donation, and learn more about the role of a legal nurse consultant in Debbie’s interview on WGN Radio’s Let’s Get Legal.

Matthew J. Goldstein joined the Wallace Miller team as an attorney in January 2024. He focuses on class action, consumer protection, and antitrust litigation and recently argued an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging predatory lending practices.

What initially drew you to the legal field? 

Well, my high school didn’t have a law club. And so, my friend Josh and I started a mock trial team, and I caught the bug. I thought to myself, this is what I want to do.  

Except for the time I wanted to be a firefighter when I was younger, I’ve never really wanted to do anything else. A lot of my role models growing up were lawyers, and I enjoy speaking, investigating, analyzing, and this is a career where I could do that. Putting these skills to use as an advocate for my clients is one of the great joys of my life.  

I’m also a big history buff, and a lot of important, interesting characters in American history are lawyers. And I don’t think that escaped me as a young kid—I think subconsciously, that was influential. 

What’s your favorite part about working in law? 

I really enjoy oral advocacy—making an argument to a jury or a judge—and the process of crafting hopefully persuasive arguments. I like litigation and I like being in a courtroom—I think it’s a privilege to litigate. And I take being in court seriously.  

I also appreciate having some autonomy in these spaces, which is why I gravitated towards plaintiff-side litigation, and, ultimately, Wallace Miller, which is very nurturing of me and my legal interests.  

And I like working with people. My job allows me to fight for my clients alongside a team of incredibly smart and innovative people—what’s not to like?  

What do you hope to achieve with the work you do? 

To change the law for the better. In recent cases I’ve worked on, three federal district judges—who are appointed by the President by the way—have found for my clients and ruled that certain consumer arbitration provisions were unenforceable for various reasons, including on grounds that the contracts were unconscionable under Illinois law and also unenforceable because they waived state and federal law. I wrote those briefs and argued in those cases, and now we’re making good law.  

The wins are important—and they need to be cherished, because, well, we don’t always win. That’s part of the reason why it’s important for me personally to be at a firm like Wallace Miller. When you’re on a good team, your defeats are tempered by the good people that you work with.  

You are currently working on litigation against a company called ZocaLoans that’s been making predatory loans at illegally high interest rates. Why is that case so important? 

In part because of the sheer number of people to whom these loans have been made. Just from 2018 to 2022, ZocaLoans made about 10,000 illegal loans to Illinois residents. About 300,000 to 350,000 loans were made nationwide during the same period.  

But many states, like Illinois, Virginia, and Maryland, have passed laws designed to protect consumers from predatory high-interest loans. They do this by imposing rate caps that prohibit a lender from making loans above a certain rate of interest. 

In Illinois, for example, a licensed lender cannot make a loan to a consumer at an interest rate over 36%—that’s the ceiling, the maximum they can charge. And if you’re not licensed, you can’t make a loan to a consumer at an interest rate exceeding 9%. And that’s high enough, you know?  So, the loans made by companies like ZocaLoans and Minto Money and many others, are made at interest rates of 500%, 600%, or even 700%, and they are all illegal in Illinois. Period. And for good reason: people get into a cycle of debt, a treadmill of debt, and it really perpetuates poverty. 

Private equity firms often fund and manage these operations even though they have buckets of money already, but they’re not satisfied. And that’s why they’ve branched out into these illegal spaces. The greed is overwhelming, clearly, as being involved at all risks damaging one’s reputation, of course, but also exposes these companies to tremendous civil liability.  

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has taken some action—in 2017, for example, they sued Think Finance for making illegal loans and some settlement checks went out recently. But most enforcement action comes from regular people bringing private suits.  Litigation like we do here, going after these companies, is one way to hold these bad actors accountable and keep them in check.  

What other cases are you working on? 

I’m working on a case with Ed Wallace and Mark Miller against Allstate Insurance Company, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Our clients are four Allstate Exclusive Agents who Allstate classified as independent contractors but treated as employees under California law. As a result, our clients were forced to pay for expenses that Allstate should have handled. We will move to certify the action as a class action in June. 

What advice would you like to offer clients? 

The same advice I would offer anyone—if you don’t know, ask. People’s instincts are usually right. I mean, if something stinks, there’s often something there. And that’s why we’re here—to take action, to help people, and to do what we can to set the strife in order.  

To learn more about Matt, check out his full bio here. 

Reviewed and edited by Nicholas P. Kelly, Esq. 

In a personal injury lawsuit, the person who has been harmed—the plaintiff—goes through the civil court system to seek justice. Through their litigation, they assert that the defendant’s conduct caused them harm, either intentionally or through carelessness. 

Civil cases provide an alternative option to criminal cases for those seeking justice. While a criminal case may result in jail time, the consequences of a civil case generally take the form of monetary compensation. And civil lawsuits have a lower burden of proof: rather than proving fault “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a criminal case, plaintiffs must only prove a “preponderance of evidence”—that the defendant’s behavior more likely than not caused them harm. 

Personal injury claims span a wide variety of situations and can include slip-and-fall cases, car accidents, dog bites, medical malpractice, product liability, assault and battery, defamation, and sexual abuse. In every personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff is fighting to receive compensation in the form of damages.

What are damages in a personal injury lawsuit?

The legal use of the word damages can be confusing—colloquially, when we talk about damage, we mean the harm done to something. Damages under the law, on the other hand, refers to a specific principle of civil cases.

In a lawsuit, damages refers to the compensation the plaintiff receives to make up for the defendant’s wrongdoing.

Damages are usually monetary. They are calculated to make up for the losses that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the defendant’s actions. In other words, if a plaintiff successfully proves that the defendant’s conduct caused them harm, the court or jury will award them compensation in the form of damages. 

How are damages determined?

The type and amount of damages paid will be determined by the civil court in charge of the case. In a jury trial, the jury will determine the award. The plaintiff can also opt for a judge-only trial (also called a “bench” trial). In a bench trial, the judge makes the final determination on damages. 

How damages are determined also depends on the types of losses suffered by the plaintiff. They may be economic or non-economic, and can compensate for harm and expenses suffered by the plaintiff or serve to punish the defendant for their wrongdoing. 

Types of damages: Compensatory and punitive

Compensatory damages

Compensatory damages are a type of monetary payment that the jury or judge awards to a plaintiff in order to compensate them for the harms or losses they’ve suffered due to the defendant’s conduct.  

These damages are designed to “make the plaintiff whole.” This means restoring the injured party to the position they would have been in—financially, physically, and emotionally—if the injury or harm hadn’t happened. This could include paying for medical bills and ongoing healthcare, covering increased costs of living, or compensating a plaintiff for pain and suffering.  

In many instances, money isn’t enough to truly make up for what a plaintiff has gone through. There is no way to erase the harm they’ve suffered, or truly return them to a time before the defendant’s actions. However, money can improve a plaintiff’s quality of life and help them afford medical bills or other expenses. While the system isn’t perfect, the law tasks the jury or judge to do their best to assign a value to what was taken from the injured person. 

Economic vs. non-economic compensatory damages in a personal injury case

Compensatory damages are divided into two categories: economic damages (which compensate for monetary losses) and non-economic or general damages (which compensate for non-monetary losses). 

Economic compensatory damages

Economic personal injury damages repay the plaintiff for financial losses they have experienced or are likely to experience as a result of the harm the defendant caused. 

Common economic damages include: 

• Medical bills, both past and future 
• Caretaking and household expenses while recovering 
• The future expenses of living with a disability 
• Loss of earnings or profits, including lost wages, now and in the future 
• Property damage repair and replacement 

In most states, there is no limit on the amount of compensatory damages that can be awarded. The jury or judge will assess the plaintiff’s situation and determine a fair compensation.

Non-economic compensatory damages

Also called general damages, non-economic damages are harder to quantify but arguably even more important than economic damages. As people, we value our health—our ability to live without pain, distress, or disability; our ability to spend the time we have with our friends, family, and loved ones; our ability to take part in the things we enjoy. Pain and disability caused by harmful conduct can distract us and make it more difficult for us to live our lives. 

Non-economic damages help remedy what was taken from personal injury victims in terms of health, happiness, and human dignity. They recognize the human cost that individuals suffer when harmed through no fault of their own. 

Common general damages include: 

• Physical pain and suffering, both past and future 
• Scarring or disfigurement 
• Disability 
• Emotional distress 
• Loss of reputation 
• Loss of consortium 

Non-economic damages may also compensate a plaintiff for “loss of a normal life,” or their temporary or permanent diminished ability to enjoy their daily activities.  

Punitive damages

Compensatory damages are designed to make the injured person whole. Punitive damages, on the other hand, are an additional form of damages designed to punish the defendant. Also known as exemplary damages, they punish the defendant for particularly egregious conduct and attempt to deter others from engaging in similar behavior in the future. 

Courts may choose to award punitive damages in situations where the defendants display a willful disregard for the rights and safety of others, display a reckless disregard for human life, or have committed fraud. While this depends on the state, the limit helps avoid excessive punitive damages in court. 

Wrongful death and survival cases

Wrongful death claims and survival actions are two specific types of suits that can be brought under the umbrella of personal injury lawsuits. Both are brought by the surviving family members of someone who has passed and address the harm caused by the individual’s death. 

However, wrongful death and survival claims seek different types of damages. A wrongful death claim: 

• Is brought by the surviving family members (usually the spouse, children, or next of kin). 
• Seeks compensation for losses suffered by the family as a result of the individual’s death. 

On the other hand, a survival action: 

• Is brought by the deceased person’s estate. 
• Seeks compensation for losses suffered between when the individual was injured and when they died. 

While both address the harm caused by an individual’s death, the survival action allows the estate to pursue the legal claims that the person would have been entitled to if they were still alive. 

Economic damages in wrongful death cases often include: 

• Funeral and burial costs 
• Loss of future income 
• Loss of services and benefits provided by the deceased (childcare, for example) 

Economic damages for survival claims are more similar to typical personal injury damages, and generally include injury-related medical bills. 

For many people, non-economic losses incurred when someone loses a family member or loved one are even more significant than economic losses. These general damages often account for the loss of the individual’s companionship, love, guidance, and moral support suffered by the surviving spouse, children, or next of kin. Many jurisdictions also allow plaintiffs to recover damages for grief, sorrow, and mental suffering. Survival claims operate in a similar fashion, but typically include the pain and suffering of the individual between when they were injured and when they passed. 

After the personal injury settlement

The process of a personal injury case can be complicated. After damages are awarded, there are still a few steps remaining before a plaintiff receives their money. 

After a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff, the court may review the award to verify if the amount is excessive or deficient. Depending on its findings, the court may change the final amount to be awarded to the plaintiff.  

Understanding damage estimates

Experienced lawyers use a variety of information about a case to estimate what a potential settlement or court award may be worth. But ultimately, nobody can predict with 100 percent certainty what a personal injury case might be worth at the case’s outset. 

Settlement and award values are highly individualized and depend on the nature and extent of a plaintiff’s injuries. It’s important to hire an experienced personal injury attorney who can gather and present evidence that fully captures the plaintiff’s losses.  

Talk to a personal injury lawyer

Not sure how much your personal injury case could be worth? Our team of legal professionals and personal injury attorneys is available to talk through your situation and answer any questions you might have. Reach out to Wallace Miller at (312) 261-6193 for a confidential and free consultation.