THOMAS MORE LEINENWEBER
Thomas More Leinenweber has been voted by his peers as a Super Lawyer under White Collar Criminal Law and General Litigation and to the National Trial Lawyers Top 100 Trial Lawyers for both 2012 and 2013. His impressive trial successes in civil and criminal cases are why he is recognized nationally as one of the best trial lawyers in America.
Mr. Leinenweber is a third generation lawyer with over twenty years practice experience. He graduated from Miami University with a BA in History and Political Science and received his J.D. from John Marshall Law School. While in law school he clerked for noted Chicago attorney William J. Harte and the firm of Mayer Brown & Platt.
Mr. Leinenweber commenced his career as an Assistant State’s Attorney in the criminal and civil divisions of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. Following government service, Mr. Leinenweber joined Arnstein & Lehr, and over the next four years tried a number of cases, including on behalf of the Chicago Transit Authority, the Cook County Public Administrator and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Mr. Leinenweber also served as the Assistant Village Attorney for the Village of Mount Prospect and as the Village Prosecutor for the Village of Lake-in-the-Hills.
In 1998, Mr. Leinenweber along with others founded the law firm of Stone Troglia and Leinenweber, which later merged with Cowen Crowley Nord & Staub, which today is known as Stahl Cowen. In 2003, Mr. Leinenweber formed his current law firm with Peter Baroni, former counsel to the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee and the author of the Illinois Sentencing and Disposition Guide.
Currently, Mr. Leinenweber’s practice consists of White Collar criminal defense, securities law and general federal and state litigation. He also represents attorneys before the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee. Mr. Leinenweber is considered an authority on federal sentencing law by his peers and as demonstrated by the results of over a hundred such proceedings. He has tried over 30 jury trials, hundreds of bench trials and in 2004, he won the only acquittal ever in the Northern District of Illinois in a criminal insider trading trial. He has represented attorneys, doctors, police officers, fire fighters, brokers, manufacturers, public bodies, large corporations and small businesses.
Mr. Leinenweber has been rated AV, the Highest Legal Ability Rating by Martindale Hubble Peer Review Rating System, which is only given to less than 5% of the attorneys in the United States. He also was named as a 2013 and 2014 Super Lawyer under White Collar Criminal Law and General Litigation, and named to the National Trial Lawyers Top 100 Trial Lawyers for both 2012 and 2013.
Mr. Leinenweber has served on the Board of St. Athanasius School as well as the Juvenile Protective Association. He is a member of the Chicago Inns of Court, the Celtic Legal Society and the author of Illinois Apprendi Case Law: Two and a Half Years of Broad Application and Rapid Evolution.
U.S. v. A.W. – Bank robbery involving an alleged insider– successful suppression motion of a statement given by the defendant admitting participation in the robbery and the acquisition of thousands of dollars in evidence by the Government.
U.S. v. S.J. – Mortgage fraud case against an attorney. Successfully argued the defendant had not obstructed justice after he testified denying that he defrauded a bank.
U.S. v. P.G – Finding of not guilty in a criminal insider trading case in which was alleged that client, a broker at Credit Suisse First Boston, had traded on inside information and made over $250,000 in profits. This case is the only finding of not guilty in a criminal insider trading case in the history of the Northern District of Illinois.
U.S. v. G.T. – represented a City of Chicago Building Inspector accused of accepting bribes to ignore building code violations.
People v. M.W. – Find of not guilty in an embezzlement case where an executive was accused of embezzlement from his former employer.
People v. B.B. – Find of not guilty in a case where a company executive was accused of indecent exposure for allegedly exposing himself at a female victim.
O.G. v. City of Chicago, et al. – successfully defended at trial three City of Chicago Police Officers from the Gang Unit accused of excessive use of force, unlawful search and seizure and malicious prosecution.
Chicago Fire Fighters, et al. v. City of Chicago – successfully represented at trial a class of Chicago Fire Fighters in a reverse discrimination claim.
A.L. v. Jon Burge and City of Chicago – successfully represented a City of Chicago Police Detective in the Jon Burge litigation accused of torturing a criminal defendant.
R.W. v. City of Chicago – successfully represented at trial a City of Chicago Police Officer accused of excessive use of force.
CFC v Optimum Card Services – successfully represented at trial an executive accused of misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty.
R.S. v. M.Y. – successfully represented at trial an attorney accused of fraud and legal malpractice.
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. P.T.I.L. – successfully persuaded a court to release in excess of $30 million dollars in frozen assets in an alleged insider trading case.
United States v. A.Y. – Client, who owned an art gallery in Florida, plead guilty to Mail Fraud in a case involving the sale of counterfeit paintings. The recommended sentencing guideline range was 21-27 months in prison and pursuant to negotiated plea agreement, the Government requested 11 months in prison. After a sentencing hearing, the client received only 45 days in jail.
United States v. D.B. – Client was convicted at trial of Theft of Government Funds and Mail Fraud. The Government sought a sentence between 24-30 months in prison. After a sentencing hearing, the client received 24 months probation,
United States v. E.K. – Client, a Cook County Sheriff, plead guilty to Bribery of a Public Official. The Government sought a sentence of 46-57 months in prison. After a sentencing hearing, the client received 18 months in prison.
United States v. B.L. – Client was convicted at trial of making telephonic death threats. The Government sought a sentence of between 33-41 months in prison. After a sentencing hearing, the client received 24 months in prison.
United States v. M.M. - after a trial in which the client was convicted of gun and drug charges and sentenced to five years in prison. The case was reversed on appeal and remanded. After client plead guilty, he was sentenced to time served.
United v. J.S. - Client was a salesman who attempted to violate the United States embargo of Iran by attempting to trade goods. Client plead guilty to 50 U.S.C. §1702 and §1705(b). The Government sought a sentence of 63-78 months in prison. After a sentencing hearing, the client received 5 years probation.
United States v. M.A. –Client was a police officer who plead guilty to conspiracy to possess stolen merchandise. The Government sought a sentence of between 33-41 months in prison. After a sentencing hearing, the client received 18 months in prison.
United States v. J.A. – Client plead guilty in a mortgage fraud case in which the Government sought a sentence between 63-78 months with a loss amount of over 5 million dollars. After a sentencing hearing, the client received 21 months in prison.
United States v. D.B. – Client plead guilty to Bribery of a Public Official. The Government sought a sentence of 41-51 months. After a sentencing hearing, the client received 5 years probation.
United States v. R.B. – Client plead guilty to embezzling over 2 million dollars from her employer, a Fortune 500 company based in Chicago. The Government sought a sentence of 41-51 months. After a sentencing hearing, the client received 27 months in prison.
United States v. D.D. – Client plead guilty to bank robbery. The Government sought a sentence of 41-51 months. After a sentencing hearing, the client received 20 months in prison.
People v. J.S. – Client plead guilty to reckless homicide after killing a pedestrian in a drunk driving accident. After substantial negotiations, client received a sentence of 30 days in jail.
People v. J.S. – represented a client on felony probation who was arrested and charged with six burglaries and a one charge of unlawful use of a weapon. Negotiations with the Cook County State’s Attorney and the judge resulted in a sentence of six months in drug treatment after the State initially asked for 6 years in prison.
People v. E.F. - represented a factory worker and veteran who was charged with stealing firearms. Negotiations with the Lake County State’s Attorney resulted in the charges being reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor and the client being sentenced to probation.
People v. T.W. - represented a college student arrested for burglary to several automobiles. Negotiations with the Will County State’s Attorney resulted in the charges being reduced to a misdemeanor and the client being sentenced to probation and avoiding jail time and the stigma of a felony conviction.
U.S. v. J.M. – represented a client accused of making and detonating a pipe bomb. Through intensive negotiations with the United States’ Attorney’s Office, we were able to get the Government to agree to a Deferred Prosecution, which called for the client to perform community service, attend counseling sessions and make restitution in exchange for the eventual dismissal of all charges.
U.S. v. V.K.P. - represented a small business owner who was charged with conducting an unlicensed money transmitting business sending money to the Middle East. Negotiations with the U.S. Attorney’s Office resulted in an agreement to Defer Prosecution calling for the client to perform community service. All charges were eventually dismissed.
U.S. v. R.S. – Client was charged with Mortgage Fraud. After extensive negotiation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, all charges were dropped.
People v. I.H. – Client was charged with felony impersonation of a police officer. After extensive negotiations with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the charges were reduced to a misdemeanor and the client received supervision with no jail time.