About Us

HH is a small firm that handles large cases. Over our history, we have litigated cases with hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in damages. Typically, this means we litigate against the largest and most prestigious law firms in the country. But despite sometimes long odds and fierce resistance, HH has a demonstrated history of success in large and small cases alike.

We also frequently litigate cases involving novel legal issues that many firms shy away from. HH has changed the law in several areas—from constitutional rights to ERISA to corporate governance—in courts across the country. To do so, HH has displayed unique and useful expertise in both trial and appellate advocacy.

To achieve these results, HH has developed a particular philosophy: we thoroughly and exhaustively investigate every case presented to us before filing to ensure the best chance of success. We only file a small fraction of the cases we investigate and those that we do are given our undivided and complete attention by everyone at our firm. As a result, our work product is frequently novel, consistently thorough, and always well thought-out.

We also value the relationships we’ve developed with our co-counsel, clients, and often even our opposing counsel. With a smaller size, we have few rigid rules, making us flexible enough to mesh well with other firms who choose to work with us. It also helps that we like what we do—a lot. So if you’d like to work with us or have us review your case, please contact us today.

For our individual attorney biographies, please click on the links to the left.

Across the nation, courts have praised our lawyers for their excellent results, hard work, and conscientious regard for class members' rights.

In approving the settlement in In re Bank One Securities Litigation: First Chicago Shareholders Claims, Judge Wayne Andersen of the Northern District of Illinois stated:
"You know, it is a major day for all of you. I think you have really done an excellent job... it is, frankly, an honor for me to be able to deal with such outstanding lawyers."

Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Charles P. Kocoras, commented on the work ethic of our attorneys in approving a $7 million settlement in an ERISA action:
"This case was, as I said, not a lay-down case and it did involve a great deal of work on the part of the attorneys... and whose papers support the proposition that a lot of work was put into this case.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Young v. Verizon’s Bell Atl. Cash Balance Plan
"Fine advocacy. . . ."

Hon. Judge Michael McShane, United States District Court, District of Oregon, Dooley v. Saxton
"Quality of the work has been excellent"

Hon. Wayne Anderson, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, In re Bank One Sec. Litig.
"Very well qualified...with extensive experience in securities class action litigation."
"An excellent job...frankly, it was an honor for me to be able to deal with such outstanding lawyers."

Chancellor Leo E. Strine of the Delaware Chancery Courts in Pearson v. Voglesinger and Martin v. PNB Holding Co.
"The quality of the work of Plaintiffs' Counsel, as witnessed by this Court during the past three years of litigation, was exemplary...
Without the expertise and efforts of Plaintiffs' Counsel, the Class and Appraisal Plaintiffs likely would not have achieved any recovery,
much less the significant recovery produced in this combined litigation."

Hon. Judge Sandra Beckwith, Southern District of Ohio, Schumacher v. AK Steel Corp. Ret. Accumulation Pension Plan
“ . . . vigorous advocates. . . well-represent[ing] their clients. . .” which “resulted in the substantial judgment” despite an “uphill battle.”