Most business owners will never see the inside of an appellate courtroom, and that is a good thing. Appeals are expensive, time consuming, and usually happen after a case has already chewed up months or years. But the mindset of an appellate lawyer, the discipline of precision and the obsession with the record, can make the difference in the trial court long before any appeal is filed.
James V. DiTommaso did not become a lawyer because it sounded easy. On his attorney profile, he puts it plainly: he chose to become a lawyer because he wanted to be like his dad, the person people call when they are in a sticky situation. That is also why his litigation style is direct. When a client needs help, they do not need a lecture. They need a plan.
James has lived appellate pressure in a way very few attorneys ever experience. He argued a case before the Illinois Supreme Court, an experience that changes how you approach every case afterward. It happened in Yakich v. Aulds, a direct appeal that put a constitutional question in front of the state’s highest court. The case centered on Section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, the statute dealing with a parent’s contribution to a non minor child’s educational expenses. The circuit court declared the statute unconstitutional as applied. The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately vacated that judgment and sent the matter back, emphasizing that lower courts are bound by Illinois Supreme Court precedent and do not have authority to overrule it.
The case was also a rare moment in Illinois legal history because it involved father and son lawyers appearing as counsel on both sides of the matter before the Supreme Court. That does not happen in routine litigation. It happens in cases that are serious, well briefed, and hard fought.
There are two ways to look at the Supreme Court’s result. One is academic. The other is practical.
The academic lesson is about stare decisis. In plain English, trial courts cannot decide they no longer like a Supreme Court case and ignore it. The practical lesson is more important for business litigation clients. When you are fighting in court, you have to know what the controlling law is today, not what you wish it was, and you have to build your strategy around it.
That is what appellate experience teaches.
In the Illinois Supreme Court, there is no room for vague arguments or sloppy storytelling. The questions come fast. The justices want to know where something is in the record. They want to know what rule controls. They want to know what the legal consequence is if they agree with you. There is nowhere to hide behind rhetoric. It is precision under pressure.
That same discipline applies to business disputes.
When a partnership fight breaks out, the “facts” are rarely clean. People remember meetings differently. Text messages are interpreted differently. Financial records can be spun. The side that wins is usually the side that turns chaos into clarity. That requires building a record that is defensible, documenting the story early, and anticipating what a judge will need to rule in your favor.
James approaches business litigation the way an appellate court reads it. What did we prove. What did we preserve. What did we make easy for the judge to adopt in a written order. That is not just a style choice. It is strategy.
Yakich v. Aulds also shows something else. High stakes litigation can be personal, but it is never only personal. The case involved a real family dispute, but the legal issue had broader implications because it challenged a statute that affects people across Illinois. In business disputes, it is the same. Your case feels unique, but the judge is thinking about rules, precedent, and the ripple effects of any order.
A lawyer who has argued in the Illinois Supreme Court understands that. You do not just ask for relief. You justify it in a way that fits the law, respects the court’s role, and gives the judge a clean path to rule.
That is why appellate experience matters even if your case never goes up.
The strongest trial court results are usually the results that were built to survive scrutiny. That means focusing on the documents that will matter later. It means preparing witnesses so their testimony is consistent and credible. It means framing issues in a way that is anchored in statutory language and case law, not emotion. It means understanding when a temporary order is effectively the final outcome, because once the business loses key customers or key employees, you cannot rewind the tape.
James brings that perspective to the firm’s business litigation practice. He has handled complex disputes in both state and federal courts. He understands the difference between making noise and making a record. And he knows that the best litigation strategy is not simply to fight. It is to fight in a way that forces resolution on terms that protect the client’s future.
If you are in a high stakes dispute and you need a lawyer who understands trial court pressure and appellate level precision, call DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. at 630-333-0333 for a free consultation, or contact us online. James DiTommaso can help you build a strategy that holds up when the case gets serious.