Amanda E. McCubbin concentrates her practice in construction litigation, professional liability defense, and commercial disputes. She is an extremely dedicated transportation attorney, and handles a large volume of transportation litigation cases defending commercial carriers. Before joining Kopka Pinkus Dolin, she represented corporate entities, individuals, and insurance companies in litigation involving products liability, medical malpractice, transportation, insurance coverage, estates and trusts, and motor vehicle accidents.
A top-rated attorney among her peers, Amanda was selected to Super Lawyers® Rising Stars for 2018-2019. Throughout her career, she has drafted and argued numerous successful dispositive motions in both state and federal courts, and has obtained favorable resolutions to claims through mediation and arbitration. Amanda has participated in numerous jury trials resulting in favorable verdicts, and is knowledgeable when it comes to drafting and arguing pre- and post-trial motions. In addition, she has second chaired medical malpractice trials, as well as premises liability trials.
Amanda follows a team approach to litigation matters. Whether it involves following client litigation protocols, understanding client goals and concerns, or providing counseling and guidance for clients from a litigator’s perspective, she makes meeting her clients’ needs a top priority.
- Chicago Bar Association
- Pister v. Matrix Service Industrial Contractors, et.al.: Jury Trial, Circuit Court of Champaign County, Illinois In this case, Amanda assisted the first chair partner to achieve a defense verdict on behalf of a nationally known target defendant in Champaign, Illinois. Plaintiff agreed the welding rods and other tools found in the wreckage of the Defendant employee’s car placed him in the course and scope of employment at the time he caused a fatal head on accident that killed him and Plaintiff’s decedent. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Upon appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s ruling and refused to apply the workers’ compensation theory of traveling employee to tort law cases.