Robert D. Segal
Robert D. Segal
Partner

Hailing from Philadelphia and equipped with an Ivy League educational background, Robert Segal came to Davis Friedman with a commercial and securities litigation background. After representing a client in a pro bono divorce case, he found the work so invigorating that he eventually moved into the marital law arena altogether, and sought out Davis Friedman for its prominence in Chicago legal circles.

"Beyond working at the highest level of professionalism and being very friendly and cooperative as lawyers," he says, "the people at this firm are inherently good human beings. Many other divorce lawyers tell their clients what they want to hear to get the business, with no possible way of delivering on those claims. But everyone at Davis Friedman is very realistic, forthright and caring toward their clients, which nets a better result in the end, and means less overall stress for both parties."

Segal emphasizes the firm's responsiveness to clients and sensitivity to their needs. His perspective on divorce cases is clear: settlements should be achieved as much as possible, but if pressed on litigation, he will fervently serve and provide for his client in court. “My philosophy is that every case can and should be settled," he says. "But sometimes a settlement isn't possible, with either one or both spouses, or the opposing attorney, taking an unreasonable position. In that event, I will aggressively litigate for a result that represents the best possible scenario and outcome for my client.”

A frequent writer and lecturer who speaks on marriage, divorce and child custody issues, Segal also sits on many boards of directors for a variety of civil and community associations and services, including the Legal Aid Society and the Foundation for Hearing and Speech Rehabilitation. He is also co-President of the Midwest Regional Advisory Board for his alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania.

Admitted: 1986, Pennsylvania, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit; 1987 U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey; 1994, Illinois and U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Law School: University of Pennsylvania Law School; Temple University, J.D., 1986.

College: University of Pennsylvania, B.A., 1982, cum laude.

Biography:
Course Planner, Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (“IICLE”) 4th Annual Family Law Conference, April, 2005; Lecturer, IICLE’s 3rd Annual Family Law Conference, April, 2004 (Topic: Divorce Taxation & Malpractice Traps for the Family Law Practitioner); Lecturer, IICLE’s 2nd Annual Family Law Conference, April 2003 (Topic: Divorce Taxation); Lecturer, “Complex Divorce Issues for Illinois Practitioners,” National Business Institute, January, 2003; Lecturer, “Child Custody Trial: What You Need to Know,” Chicago Bar Association, 2001.

Guest Lecturer, “Business Interests and Divorce,” Hinshaw & Culbertson, February, 2002; Baker & McKenzie, May, 2002.

Author, “New Law Raising Old Questions Involving Maintenance and Work,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, March 17, 1995; “Court Rejects Joint Custody Arrangement,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, November 27, 1995; “Courts Reluctant to Enforce Pacts on Religion,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, August, 1996; “Partnership Law Edging into Realm of Divorce Case,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, August 25, 1997; Harassment Prohibition in Order of Protection Has Broad Implications,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, April, 2000.

Fellow, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (2000-present); Member, Leading Lawyers Network, named as one of Illinois’ top lawyers for three consecutive years (2003-06); named as an Illinois Super Lawyer (2005-06); member, Office of the Illinois Attorney General Committee on Implementation of Statewide Child Support Forms (1997-98).

No matter how successful a person may be in their professional lives, if they're getting a divorce, they're understandably scared and terribly insecure. A good family law attorney has to play many roles and do whatever is necessary in helping people through such a difficult time.

 
Anger isn't usually an efficient legal position in and of itself.
 
Objectivity plays a key role in reaching an equitable resolution. Objectivity is impossible to achieve when the client is angry and the emotional wounds are still open and seething. Sometimes letting a case simmer for a time turns out to be a good strategy. It allows both parties' emotions to cool a bit, and may be appropriate in suiting the client's needs.
© Davis Friedman  |  Policies  |  Site Map