Building Solutions with Clifford Law Offices' Shannon McNulty

Shannon McNulty has devoted her career to the pursuit of two goals: seeking the truth and implementing solutions. 

Her mission started while working for the state of Illinois at the Criminal Justice Information Authority, where she managed the state’s Chicago Homicide Dataset. “I found that work rewarding because we were taking the data collected from the most violent and tragic of occurrences and using it to make predictions to prevent future crime,” she says. Rather than focusing on the punitive, McNulty prioritizes advocacy and prevention that betters communities as a whole.

That undertaking, along with both grandparents and several other family members serving as police officers, encouraged her to join the Chicago Police Department as a civilian. She spent a decade with the department, where she served as the Director of Administration in the Bureau of Operational Services and Chief of Staff to the First Deputy Superintendent. While there, she realized that she could seek out different kinds of preventative solutions as a lawyer – and, in law school, she recognized she could be an agent of change on a broad scale through tort law. “Seeing the common denominator of enforcing the law and finding solutions and improving standards of living caused me to gravitate toward practicing in areas of tort law,” she says. “Those were all commonalities with the work at the police department.”

For the last 20 years, she’s fulfilled that undertaking as a partner at Chicago personal injury firm Clifford Law Offices, where she heads up the firm’s mass tort, fraud, whistleblower/qui tam matters and class actions. “Every day is different,” she says. “As they say, variety is the spice of life.”

Over the years, McNulty has achieved striking verdicts and settlements for individuals and client classes. In 2019 she achieved a $34.75M result for a class of plaintiffs who purchased Proline Casement windows – windows with, the case alleged, a defective design that led to premature rotting. McNulty argued that the defendants had known about the windows’ defects for decades without ever revealing the knowledge to their consumers. Proving there was a design defect was “not an easy task,” she says, “especially when you are against a major corporation.”

But going up against large corporations facing complex issues has been a key part of her practice; she has been involved in some of the nation’s most hot-button, large-scale litigations, affecting real-world change through awareness and policy shifts. She’s particularly seeing policies change in the data privacy sector: She was involved firsthand as liaison counsel in the data privacy suit against TikTok, which was resolved for $92M in 2022. The case centered around a class of users who claimed their personal data was collected and shared without consent. “TikTok was one of those cases where we were looking for conduct to change – to protect young people, in particular,” she says.

McNulty has also been active in bankruptcy and disbursement proceedings for the landmark opioid cases of the last few years. She was a co-lead counsel for the trial team in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy proceedings – in a trial that involved 41 witnesses and ended in a $250M settlement. She has also been a key member of the team negotiating and implementing an acute care hospital trust that is expected to disburse $45M to hospitals to bolster remedies against the opioid epidemic.

But change doesn’t start and end with case results. McNulty emphasizes the process of litigation is often a solution in itself. In every case, she helps clients rediscover and utilize their own voices to tell their stories, ultimately helping them find a sense of justice and confidence that can feel lost after a tragedy. “I really believe in active, empathetic listening to restore the client to their strongest position, not only in their case, but in their life,” she says. 

Lawdragon: Tell me about what brought you to the law.

Shannon McNulty: When I was at the police department, my police captain at the time called me in and said, "You need to go to law school." It was really just that simple. He was somebody that I admired and respected, and he himself was a lawyer. When he approached me with that guidance, it made me think. Then, with the help of some of my colleagues, I took the LSAT and was ready for law school at DePaul.

LD: Why did he think a legal career was right for you?

SM: I think he believed that it was a good use of problem-solving and intellect, and it allowed for some independence. And that with a law degree you can have more options to assist in the community and in large organizations – bureaucracies even.

LD: And Clifford Law Offices was your first job out of law school?

SM: That's right. There was an investigation being reopened at the police department, and it so happened that Clifford Law Offices represented one of the victims. Through that shared experience began a discussion on what area of law I wanted to practice. So, from there, I decided to leave the police department and join Clifford Law Offices.

LD: What stood out to you about the firm?

SM: There was a shared value system amongst the partners and the training of younger lawyers that prioritized people, that emphasized empathy and that was devoted to truth-seeking and bringing justice for underserved or underprivileged victims.

LD: Tell me about some of those early cases. How did you know, yes, this is where I want to be?

SM: When I began at the firm, one of the partners was preparing for trial on an aviation case. It was a small private jet that had unfortunately crashed, and there were fatalities. The investigation of those facts was my wheelhouse, and truth-seeking in that case was inspiring. Shortly thereafter, there was a case involving the city and a fire. Some of my experience from my assignment to the communication section of the police department lent itself to the fact-finding mission of that case.

For all of the cases, irrespective of the subject matter, there's a complexity to developing a case and synthesizing the facts to allow for the trier of fact, namely the jury, to make a decision that ultimately should be just. And in the cases of Clifford Law Offices, that means bringing relief to our clients, the victims of whatever the circumstance of the litigation.

LD: So, it sounds like you always had an idea that you would be a trial lawyer. Is that right?

SM: I think that's true. I remember in law school when I would say I wanted to be a trial lawyer, my colleagues would point to the amount of work and the time that goes with each case, and that other areas of law may not require the same level of rigor or dedication. None of that was a detraction. There is a satisfaction in being able to investigate the facts, present the facts, and allow for a jury of our peers to make a ruling that is fair and just.

LD: You’ve said in the past that the most fulfilling part of the career is being able to give a voice to your clients. Tell me about how that comes into play.

SM: You meet a person because of a tragedy that's happened to them and their family, their loved ones. That is not the best setting in which to meet a person. The stress of whatever has caused us to meet influences how the person thinks. There is raw emotion; there is often anger. You have to become the resource for that person to synthesize all of these bombarding emotions and details and bring that person to a point of being able to tell their story with strength, purpose and confidence. That is a very personal interaction, but it is rewarding when you can look back at the end of a case with the client and reflect on how far you have come together. That is really healing for a client, and it gives them sort of a rebirth at the end of their case. They may have been a victim, but ultimately their voice was heard with strength, poise and truth. That is a really good next chapter for a client.

LD: How do you help them build that confidence to tell their story?

SM: It involves a lot of conversation, allowing the client to speak, listening without judgment, and explaining the law sometimes as if you were a law professor instructing. For many of our clients, there are more nuances to the law than they would've ever thought they would have to know or learn. But our clients, I think, are inspired by our dedication, and I think they understand that it is worth them having a good understanding of both the facts and the law.

I really believe in active, empathetic listening to restore the client to their strongest position, not only in their case, but in their life. 

LD: Going off of that, how would you describe your style as a lawyer, whether that's with your clients or in court?

SM: I would say, in both instances, it's collaborative. Collaboration doesn't necessarily mean that a co-counsel, an opposing counsel, or client is going to agree with me in the moment. But I know that talking through issues and devising solutions is the best pathway for a case.

LD: Looking at your cases, which have been the most memorable to you throughout your career?

SM: The cases that involve sexual abuse or bullying have been very rewarding in terms of bringing some relief to the victims and their families.

LD: I’m sure.

SM: Then, any time there is a wrongful death case, those are always very difficult for families. That requires a very strong connection with your client. They often feel as though they are the voice of the deceased person. Those are some of the cases that are not necessarily publicly recognized, but you know when you have a connection with a client and it's just a remarkable feeling to have brought that case to its conclusion.

I've represented families where a very small child has lost a parent and now those children are adults and preparing to have their own children. Seeing the lasting effect of well-managed litigation where you have been able to bring some relief, some calm and some security to a family or where you have been able to, in the instances of bullying or sexual abuse, bring the person from just horrible victimhood to a position of strength and control – those are very rewarding cases.

And then there are the larger cases that can become newsworthy. The Proline Casement Windows litigation was one such case, and we met a lot of people all over the country. We were in their homes five or six times throughout the litigation learning about how people live their everyday life and how litigation can just improve one's quality of life. Similarly, with the opioid litigation, that’s a crisis that affects our entire nation, and working with lawyers to find solutions for so many aspects of that crisis has been very rewarding.

LD: What other cases stand out to you?

SM: I have cases involving Big Pharma and medication pricing, which are very rewarding because you understand that the price of a medication makes a real difference for people – particularly the very young and the very old. Those are our society's most vulnerable populations. Certainly, if there is a group of people who are suffering from a major illness and require a particular medication to bring relief from symptoms, it's discouraging to learn of any allegations that there might be a misconduct in delivering that relief to those vulnerable populations. It's only right that litigation allows for there to be truth and transparency in these types of transactions.

LD: Do you enjoy going up against those large corporations?

SM: Well, I guess there's a part of me that does wish no one had to.

LD: Of course.

SM: But I feel very fortunate to have been the recipient of good education and excellent training from my partners under the leadership of Bob Clifford and his dedication of resources to those types of defendants. It's my privilege to enter that battle.

LD: Your practice mix is so varied. What does your day-to-day look like?

SM: Every day is different. I do have a very wide range of cases. I have very serious personal injury cases. I have consumer fraud cases, I have public nuisance cases, and qui tam cases. The positive aspect of that is that no one day is like another. It does require some skillful planning for managing cases, yet I have become a better lawyer because of that exposure to so many different client types, fact patterns, types of experts, and courts. My cases cause me to be in federal and state court cases all over the country, so there is a fair amount of travel involved, but again, because of the excellent support of the firm, I consider myself fortunate to have those opportunities.

LD: Finally, outside your practice, what do you enjoy doing for fun?

SM: My son is 12 and he is very active in his school and athletic interests. Currently, he’s in baseball, but as a family, we like to golf and I enjoy cooking and traveling, as well. It just feels good to have downtime with family.