Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
Home > All Attorneys > Jordan S. Edelman

Jordan S. Edelman is an attorney in the Chicago office of Kopka Pinkus Dolin, representing clients in the defense of construction negligence, construction defect, professional negligence, premises liability, automobile negligence, long term care claims, civil rights disputes, and subrogation.

Prior to joining KPD, Jordan was an associate with the Chicago office of a large national law firm specializing in insurance defense and coverage matters. He handled a variety of cases from inception through trial as lead attorney in the areas of construction negligence, premises liability, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, and long term care. Jordan represented insurance companies, hotels, restaurants, shopping centers, nightclubs, grocery stores, health clubs, general contractors, subcontractors, landlords, and tenants. He often achieved favorable outcomes in arbitrations, mediations, and settlement negotiations.

While in law school, Jordan served as a judicial intern to The Hon. Marvin E. Aspen, in the Northern District of Illinois. In that capacity he drafted opinions directed at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title XII sexual harassment. Jordan also tried criminal cases as an intern for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, Felony Trails Division. Jordan was also twice an editor of the Loyola International Law Review, and an oralist for the American Bar Association Moot Court Team.

  • American Bar Association
  • Chicago Bar Association
  • Decalogue Society of Lawyers
  • Illinois State Bar Association
Trial and Case Highlights
  • Jordan obtained Summary Judgement on behalf of a national chain grocery store in a slip-and-fall case pending in Cook County, Illinois. Plaintiff alleged fell on a foreign substance which had been dropped by another customer. In conjunction with surveillance footage which was quickly preserved, Jordan argued that the sample had been dropped only 43 seconds before the fall occurred. As a result, the Court ruled that Defendant had neither actual or constructive notice of the substance, and thus, a duty to remediate had not arisen.

  • In a premises liability case, Jordan defended an auto shop business against a slip-and-fall claim. The plaintiff allegedly incurred over $200,000 in medical expenses when she sustained multiple injuries in a fall on the defendant’s property due to an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow. As lead counsel, Jordan identified inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s written statements immediately following the accident, and disputed the extent of her injuries. The plaintiff requested $869,000, and the jury returned a not-guilty verdict.

  • In a matter involving a collision on the highway, Jordan successfully represented a garbage truck who struck the plaintiff’s disabled vehicle after she had been involved in a separate accident moments before. The plaintiff claimed the collision with the garbage truck caused a closed head injury, as well as aggravation of multiple pre-existing conditions. The defense argued that since the plaintiff was involved in two separate accidents, it was impossible to determine which of her injuries were caused by which accident. In addition, the defense disputed the nature and extent of her injuries, as an MRI one week after the occurrence did not show a brain injury. The plaintiff requested $1,500,000, and the jury returned a not-guilty verdict.

  • Jordan successfully defended his clients in a legal malpractice action wherein the plaintiff alleged that the defendant attorney failed to properly settle a highly disputed workers’ compensation action. Thereafter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants fraudulently concealed negligence through a failure to communicate settlement offers and disperse funds aimed to compensate the plaintiff for future medical treatment. Jordan filed a Motion for Summary Judgement arguing that the plaintiff’s claim mirrored an action previously dismissed by The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois when the plaintiff previously failed to engage in the active prosecution of his claim. As a result, the entire action was dismissed with prejudice—as the defense established that the legal malpractice claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata—putting an end to a dispute spanning five years, three states, and multiple jurisdictions.