Johnson & Bell, Ltd.Share Holder

Brian Patrick Gainer

About Brian Patrick Gainer

Brian Patrick Gainer is a lawyer practicing municipal liability, general negligence, investigations and 5 other areas of law. Brian received a B.A. degree from John Carroll University in 1997, and has been licensed for 21 years. Brian practices at Johnson & Bell, Ltd. in Chicago, IL.

Reviews for Brian

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Transportation
  • General Practice
  • Other 6
    • Municipal Liability
    • General Negligence
    • Investigations
    • Construction
    • Retail
    • Private Security

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Shareholder
    Firm Name
    Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Representative Cases: Secured a defense verdict in favor of the City of Chicago in a highly charged atmosphere
    in a trial followed by local
    national media: . The trial involved charges of wrongful death against the City
    a Chicago police officer in respect to an officer involved shooting that occurred in December of 2015. There were also claims that one of the plaintiffs was falsely arrested after the shooting. The decedent's estate sought damages between $12-$25 million. After a three-week trial, the jury was asked to answer a special interrogatory during its deliberations. In response to the special interrogatory, the jury found that the officer's use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury. Based upon that finding, the court entered judgment in favor of the defense.
    Obtained summary judgment in favor of a municipality in Northern Illinois
    two of its police officers: . In this federal court dispute, plaintiff alleged that the officers used excessive force in arresting her, resulting in injuries, including a broken arm. Plaintiff testified she was dragged out of a car
    thrown to the ground face first. The arrest was captured on video by a squad car camera. Plaintiff sought compensatory
    punitive damages in excess of $240,000 against the officers for making the arrest. At the close of discovery, Johnson & Bell moved for summary judgment based upon Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1986). The motion asserted that the officers were justified in using necessary force to make an arrest under state
    federal law,
    that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court granted summary judgment for Johnson & Bell's clients, finding that the motion established that the officers were justified in using force on an actively resisting suspect
    the officers did not violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights. The court accepted our argument that plaintiff was bound by the events captured on the squad car camera
    could not use her deposition testimony to concoct disputed issues of fact that contradicted the video evidence.
    Obtained a defense verdict in favor of municipal clients, who faced multiple charges, along with a dem
    for significant monetary damages: . In this case, the police officers responded to a traffic accident where they encountered the plaintiff, who had been involved in the accident. Plaintiff became combative on scene, to the point where several nearby civilians had to assist the police officers in holding the plaintiff down so that he could be h
    cuffed. Plaintiff alleged that the officers kicked, punched, tasered
    pepper sprayed him without justification, causing him significant
    permanent injuries. The officers maintained that the only force applied was a taser, which was reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiff claimed the officers used excessive force, violated his First Amendment rights,
    maliciously prosecuted him. The plaintiff dem
    ed significant monetary damages for his physical injuries as well as for time spent in custody. After one hour of deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of the officers
    the municipality on all counts.
    Secured a defense verdict in a wrongful death case seeking $15 million in damages: against a Chicago police officer. The plaintiff alleged that a Chicago police officer shot
    killed the decedent without legal justification. Moreover, the plaintiff charged that the gun recovered by the police at the scene was planted to justify the shooting. After a two-week trial, plaintiff's counsel asked the jury for $15 million. The jury deliberated for eight hours before returning a defense verdict. Obtained a not guilty verdict in a recent Chicago municipal liability case tried in federal court.
    Successfully defended two Chicago police officers: against claims of excessive force, false arrest
    malicious prosecution. The officers in this incident heard gunshots in an area of the City's south side,
    then observed a large crowd
    fight between a man
    woman near the area of the shots. The plaintiff claimed that he was approached by one defendant officer, punched in the face without provocation, arrested for no reason,
    then tasered by the second defendant officer while h
    cuffed
    compliant. The defendant officers denied these allegations
    claimed that the plaintiff approached them, grabbed one of the officers by the shoulder
    would not let go, even after being told the defendant was a police officer
    that he should immediately let go
    leave the area. Eventually the police officer being held by the plaintiff punched the plaintiff to free himself from the plaintiff's grip,
    the second officer deployed his Taser ineffectively in an attempt to get the plaintiff under control
    under arrest. Ultimately, the plaintiff was arrested
    charged with Aggravated Battery to a Police Officer
    Resisting Arrest. The plaintiff was acquitted in criminal court,
    he filed this civil action against the defendant officers. The case was tried in the Northern District of Illinois over a five-day period. After two hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict that was completely in the defendants' favor.
    Obtained a not liable verdict from a federal court jury: in a police misconduct case against the City of Chicago. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant police officers stopped their car for no reason, used excessive force while beating
    tazering him repeatedly,
    then maliciously prosecuted him for crimes he did not commit. The defendants denied the plaintiff's allegations,
    explained that they stopped the plaintiff for a traffic violation,
    then used necessary force to get him into custody while he was fighting with them over the arrest. The case was tried in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Joan H. Lefkow,
    the jury returned a verdict completely in favor of the defendants after an hour of deliberations.
    Part of trial team that received a not guilty verdict for their clients:, two Chicago Police Officers. The plaintiff alleged false arrest
    unlawful search,
    claimed emotional distress
    mental anguish as a result of the arrest
    for time spent in Cook County jail. The on-duty officers overheard a conversation about the sale of narcotics coming from an apartment
    charged the plaintiff with possession of a controlled substance. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants did not recover drugs from her
    lied so that they could send her to prison. The charges against the plaintiff were later dismissed. The defendants maintained that they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because they observed her with narcotics in her possession. The jury returned its not guilty verdict in just over an hour.
    Received a favorable outcome for three police officer defendants
    the City of Chicago: . The plaintiff claimed that the police officers falsely arrested her, conspired to violate her civil rights, failed to intervene to prevent her rights from being violated,
    maliciously prosecuted her. All of the plaintiff's allegations arose from an incident that occurred on Nov. 3, 2007, when she was arrested during a Chicago Police Department narcotics-suppression mission at the Ida B. Wells housing projects on Chicago's South Side. The plaintiff was charged with possession with intent to deliver a large amount of crack cocaine,
    was jailed for 18 months following her arrest. She was found not guilty at her criminal trial,
    then sued the arresting officers, their supervisor
    the City. Each of the individual officers testified that they had probable cause to arrest
    prosecute the plaintiff,
    the federal jury sided with the officers.
    Part of trial team that received a not guilty verdict: for their client after a two day, federal trial before Judge Amy St. Eve. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, Chicago police officers, used excessive force
    failed to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force when he was being taken into custody for an armed robbery. The plaintiff claimed injuries included a broken wrist
    slashes
    scars to his back. The plaintiff asked for compensatory
    punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense in just over one hour of deliberations.

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2005, Illinois
    2005, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
    Trial Bar, Northern District of Illinois
  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Loyola University Chicago School of Law
    Class of 2005
    J.D.
    cum laude
    Other Education
    John Carroll University
    Class of 1997
    B.A.
  • Personal Details & History
    Age
    Born in 1975
    1975

Brian Patrick Gainer

Share Holder at Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
Not yet reviewed

33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700Chicago, IL 60603-5404U.S.A.

Show on map

Lawyers Nearby

Steven Michael Ruffalo
Pro
Steven Michael Ruffalo
4.8
Municipal Law lawyer

Free Consultation

Judson H. Miner
Pro
Judson H. Miner
5.0
Municipal Law lawyer
Jeffrey S. Pavlovich
Pro
Jeffrey S. Pavlovich
4.5
Municipal Law lawyer
Joseph Pascal Sorce
Pro
Joseph Pascal Sorce
5.0
Municipal Law lawyer

Free Consultation

George F. Galland, Jr.
Pro
George F. Galland, Jr.
5.0
Municipal Law lawyer
Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking 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 Lawyers.com 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.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message: