"Nathan was amazing! He was kind knowledgeable and most importantly responsive! When you are seeking a lawyer in a bind these are the qualities you should look for. He directly answered my questions and was able to help me reach an outcome that ultimately was a win for me. I truly appreciate his help." -Ashley W.

"I have collaborated with him on many occasions and I highly regard his professionalism and quality of work."
-Atty. Joseph Younes

"Nathan Hakimi [...] was quick to respond to all of our inquiries, and helped us navigate a daunting legal quagmire. Would recommend him to a friend." -Miles K.

"I needed an attorney to help with an apartment rental situation that was getting a bit nasty. I reached out to Mr. Hakimi and it was the best decision I ever made. From the very beginning he has in my corner and at a more than reasonable rate! Having him in my corner allowed me a great level of assurance and confidence and his advice proved to be invaluable. If you need an attorney you must reach out to him! He will do excellent work and service for you! I cannot say enough!" -Vivian S.

"Nathan Hakimi has been the consummate professional." -Moishe R.

"I have used Nathan Hakimi for real estate closings both as the buyer and the seller. In both cases, he provided excellent, responsive service and the closings occurred without any issues." -Joan H.

"I have worked with Nathan on several cases, always a pleasure to collaborate with. Can and do recommend."
-Atty. Michael Fus

"I had a security deposit conflict with my landlord, and Nathan was instrumental in advising me and guiding me through the legal process. He explained the relevant laws in a clear and accessible way, which gave me the confidence to assert my rights." -Eli S.

"Before contacting Nathan, I contacted 7 different law firms and no one wanted to help with my case. But after I called Nathan, we scheduled consultation the next day, and my case was resolved in 2 weeks. Very professional service." -Denys H.

Commercial Litigation

Business & Small Business

Partnership + Entity Formation

Trust / Fiduciary Breach

Real Property Disputes

Professional Malpractice

Medical Malpractice: A patient at Evanston Hospital sustained irreversible vision loss due to failure to control intracranial pressure during a meningitis infection. A downstate Illinois ophthalmologist neglected to recognize a displaced lens following cataract surgery, after numerous complaints. These cases are both in the midst of litigation by CorePoint Law LLC as lead counsel on behalf of the plaintiff.

Restrictive Covenants: two employees left their brokerage to start a competitor in produce trucking logistics. Their company aggressively pursued them for violations of noncompete, nondisclosure, and nonsolicit covenants. After refuting the accusations of their having solicited former clients and the alleged damages sustained as a result, they gained an agreement to become free to operate immediately (despite a 2-year noncompete term), and remitted less than half the demanded settlement payment.

Partnership Disassociation: an Atlanta woman joined a Chicago tech startup remotely, on the basis of a 33% share in the company. She worked fulltime for two years, then was fired after taking leave to be caretaker for her elderly father, because the proprietor asked to gratuitously dilute her share which she refused. CorePoint Law lLC is representing her for claims of partnership breach and unjust enrichment.

Breach of Contract: a partnership was attempted between an MD/NP couple, and a cosmetologist/beautician, so the latter could offer botox, radio frequency, microneedling, and other treatments requiring medical supervision under Illinois law. The negotiation fell through because the beautician did not like the MD husband to have full control over the income from the medical aesthetics clients, but she kept $30,000 of prepayment advanced by the MD/NP couple toward the partnership, while continued to offer those treatments off-label without a medical supervisor.

Landlord-Tenant: a CPD officer purchased an apartment building, intending to rent the other units. When an existing tenant's lease was over, he withheld the entire $1700 security deposit because there was significant plumbing work and other damage, but the tenant disputed this. Initially, the lawsuit claimed not only the deposit, but the statutory damages available under the Chicago Residential-Tenant Ordinance. CorePoint Law LLC succeeded at proving, over the tenant's denials, that the landlord was an owner-occupant not subject to the CRLTO. Thus, he only needed to settle on the deposit itself (without the additional statutory damages of double-rent, and attorney's fees).

Property Dispute: in two similar cases, an ex-husband/ex-wife, and a father/son, got into litigation where a residential property had been purchased legally by one party, but the other party claimed to own half or all of the property for underlying factors which were denied by the defendant. CorePoint Law LLC represented the defendants in both cases, settling both in favor of the defendant retaining exclusive ownership over the properties themselves, while paying reasonable monetary settlements.

Conract Review: on behalf of multiple doctors, IT professionals, real estate investors, landlords, tenants, employers, employees, and others, CorePoint Law LLC has performed contract review and drafting, including negotiation of monetary and structural terms, review for enforceability and legality in relevant jurisdictions, optimization and improvement for anticipated terms not included, and - when necessary - advising parties to a contract over their rights and obligations in pending disputes.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Three Chicagoland sisters who were beneficiaries to a trust sued a major national bank, using CorePoint Law LLC, for breaching its fiduciary duties as trustee with regard to two real properties held in trust left by their grandfather. They allege the bank did nothing to maintain the properties, either physically or in terms of rental value, did not utilize appropriate property management and repair people, and cost them over $150,000 in code remediation, renovation and repair, and lost rental profits, thus failing its standard as a trustee fiduciary.

LLC v. LLP v. Corp.: An individual, group, or pair may "incorporate" as any number of available legal structures. Major examples include PC (Professional Corporation), LLC (Limited Liability Company), S-Corp (S-Chapter Corporation), as well as LLP (Limited Liability Partnership). The difference in what kind of structure you are - or intend to be - has different implications, the usual important ones being: taxation, liability, and organization. CorePoint does not handle tax, nor bankruptcy, issues of law. But the processes for incorporation, operating and shareholder agreements, and personal liability to individual members or partners are some of the most frequent issues that arise in business litigation. Whether you are starting a new company or already have an existing one, CorePoint can help you understand the legal implications of your entity type, to be fully successful.

Negligence v. Contract Breach: A "tort," historically, is a civil violation between one party and another of general rights and duties. For example, people may not knowingly interfere with each other's business or economic relations, may not defame each other's reputation, and must fulfill the heightened standards that apply as professionals. Contract breaches, on the other hand, are not based in general rights, but instead in a local set of obligations that parties agree between each other. Both tort and contract lawsuits involve the breach of a duty, the difference being what kind of duty has been violated (general or local) and what kind of damages may be available (e.g. restitutive, emotional, punitive, statutory) given the losses sustained.

Appeal & Precedent: Trial courts are bound to hold by precedents set in previous cases ruled upon in an Appellate or Supreme Court. Judicial decisions made in the trial court are not globally precedential. If an appeal is taken from a trial court decision, it means the application of law to the trial proceedings is being challenged. The appellate court may: a) overrule or affirm the lower court decision, which then reverses or affirms the decision made in your case, and in so doing b) create a decision which becomes precedent to cases in the future. The decision to take an appeal is relevant when a client feels that a different result should have been reached, and the challenged application of law has potential to become the basis of future decisions.