SM
SHEILA SUNDVALL
Defense Litigator Provides Smooth
Ride to Aircraft Manufacturers
by David Conway
Sundvall has been involved in defending some
of the largest airline cases in recent history. She
even has handled aviation cases involving
celebrities, including an R&B musician and a
former president of Disney.
It all started during her first year at Sidley. “A
partner asked me, ‘How would you like to be a
member of the GE air crash team?’ He said it
would present a lot of opportunity to travel and
take depositions around the country.”
before making a decision and then usually stick
to the plan.”
Throughout her life she has consistently
excelled, and everything has gone pretty much
according to plan. She was valedictorian of her
class of 450 students at Strongsville High School
just outside of Cleveland. She graduated in the
top of her class in college and law school at the
University of Michigan. In 1987, after her second
year of law school, she was a summer associate
at Sidley & Austin in Chicago. Following law
school, she clerked for the Hon. Richard D.
Cudahy of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
and then returned to Sidley where she remained
until her recent move.
“That sounded really interesting to me.
Typically, as a new associate in a large firm at
that time, you were worried that you’d spend all
your time cooped up in a library for the first
couple years.”
Her first case was one of the biggest airline
cases she has ever handled. It involved a plane
crash in Sioux City, Iowa.
On July 19, 1989, United Flight 232 originated
in Denver and was en route to Chicago O’Hare.
During an emergency landing in Sioux City, the
plane crashed and broke into pieces. “The
plane had lost all hydraulics and was being
flown with very limited control,” Sundvall says.
“Upon landing, the plane cartwheeled and
pirouetted and then burst into flames. There are
a lot of people who have a strong familiarity
with that crash because they have seen the
video footage on TV over and over again.”
It was a tragic accident: 112 of the 296
passengers and crew died. Punitive damages
claims were asserted against GE, the
manufacturer of the engines, and other
defendants. “Ultimately, we succeeded in
resolving over 200 cases without a single
liability trial. There were a handful of damages-
Steven J. Conway
Rarely do attorneys leave one job for another
after more than 20 very successful years in a
single place, especially when they are happy
there. But that is exactly what Sheila A.
Sundvall did when she recently made the
transition to Paul Hastings.
The move is more striking because Sundvall
describes herself as particularly risk averse.
“That’s generally my approach to life,” she
explains. “I thoroughly research my options
The Origins of a Focused Career
At that firm, Sundvall was in the general
litigation group where she gained experience in
complex
commercial
litigation,
while
developing her niche in aviation litigation, which
has proven to be a valuable niche in the
Chicago legal market.
She is among a small group of attorneys who
focus their practice on the legal representation
required when an airline accident occurs.
only trials,” Sundvall says, “in cases where the
defendants had agreed not to contest liability.”
The litigation lasted for a decade. Although
Sundvall worked on other matters during that
time, “for some periods, it consumed 100
percent of my time.”
Sundvall put in a lot of time—billing 2,700
hours a year for many years—honing her craft
during the course of the GE litigation. And the
more time she put in, the more experience she
gained in aviation litigation.
During this time she had the benefit of
working under partner Chuck Douglas, who
helped guide her through her early years. “I was
very fortunate that two weeks into my career at
Sidley I was asked to work on this GE case, led
by Chuck Douglas.” Douglas was on the firm’s
executive committee then and later he became
chairman of the management committee.
“He is one of the most highly regarded
litigators at the firm, and I viewed him as a
professional mentor throughout my years as an
associate. Because of his seniority and client
relationships, he was in a position to provide
opportunities for me to pursue interesting work
and higher levels of responsibilities than what
might typically be the case for most associates
in large law firms.
“These opportunities, which I eagerly seized,
coupled with a lot of hard work to produce
high-quality work and obtain good results for
clients, ultimately allowed me to evolve into my
aviation niche,” Sundvall says. And so, she
started to manage her own cases at a relatively
early stage in her career.
Establishing Aviation Litigation as a Niche
Five years passed as an associate working
long hours when opportunity knocked on
Sundvall’s door again. One of the young
partners, a lead on the Sioux City litigation, was
pulled from the case to handle another matter.
That left a large gap in the staffing of the case
between Sundvall and the senior partner. She
had to make an important decision.
“I had to either raise my hand and ask for a
young partner to be assigned to the case, or I
had to take on the responsibilities myself as a
mid-level associate,” says Sundvall. She chose
the latter, even though it meant she would have
to devote even more hours to an extremely
time-consuming case.
However, the decision had positive, lasting
effects.
SM
“As it turned out, it was a defining moment in
my career because it established my niche in the
profession,” Sundvall says. She became one of
the leads on the case, which led to other
significant aviation work for GE and other clients.
When she made partner in 1996, Sundvall
was well-established in the aviation area and
had been managing her own cases for some
time. “Consequently, I had a lot of autonomy,
which was very satisfying professionally,” she
says. Aviation litigation accounted for a large
percentage of her practice, but she also
continued to work on a variety of other
commercial litigation matters.
In 2002, Boeing moved its corporate
headquarters to Chicago, which changed the
landscape for aviation accident claims brought
in Illinois. Cook County became a haven for
plaintiffs’ lawyers to file lawsuits stemming from
aviation accidents occurring anywhere in the
world. Plaintiffs would bring a suit against
Boeing in Illinois even though there was no
logical nexus to the state other than the
company’s headquarters.
“Plaintiffs’ lawyers were elated because
Boeing would now be an Illinois defendant. It
has prompted plaintiffs’ lawyers to file more
cases in Cook County, which is perceived as a
favorable forum for plaintiffs. It has been
somewhat of a windfall for the plaintiffs’ bar to
bring cases that don’t really belong here.”
The situation has also caused GE and other
parties to get brought into these Boeing
accident cases in Illinois with increasing
frequency. Because Sundvall has previously
represented GE, they have looked to her for
local representation.
GE entities have been named in these
aviation cases in connection with their role in
manufacturing engines or other aircraft
components, as well as their role in leasing
aircraft. Currently, Sundvall is representing GE
in several aviation matters, including major
litigation stemming from the crash of Air France
Flight 447 into the Atlantic Ocean in June 2009.
In addition to representing manufacturers,
airlines and lessors in major commercial airline
accident litigation, Sundvall also has handled a
number of high-profile cases arising from
accidents involving smaller aircraft. One
concerned R&B artist Aaliyah Haughton. In that
case, she represented a record company that
was sued after a chartered Cessna aircraft
crashed in the Bahamas, killing the musician
and other passengers who had been filming a
music video. The witness list included a slew of
famous celebrities including Whitney Houston.
That case later settled out of court.
Another such case involved the former
president of Disney, Frank Wells, who was
killed in a helicopter crash during a “heliskiing”
trip in Nevada. Sundvall and Sidley & Austin
represented the owner and president of the
helicopter company.
In the Wells case, one of the witnesses was
Clint Eastwood, who had been heliskiing with
Wells, but had piloted his own helicopter safely
out of the snowstorm on the day of the accident.
“Fortunately for the client, we succeeded in
getting the case dismissed on a motion to
dismiss,” says Sundvall. “The only personal
disappointment for me was I lost the once-in-alifetime chance to depose Clint Eastwood.”
It has been one of few disappointments in
her career.
An Unexpected Move
The decision to move to the Chicago office
of Paul Hastings was a major departure from
Sundvall’s expected career path—considered
a “Sidley lifer” by many. “I loved working at
Sidley. I couldn’t have worked there for over 20
years if I didn’t enjoy the people and my
practice,” says Sundvall. In fact, she never
applied for another job while at the firm and
never returned any of the numerous
headhunter calls she received over the years.
The opportunity came about in 2009 when
Kurt Hansson sought Sundvall out after
learning about her from a mutual GE client.
Hansson, who works in Paul Hastings’ New
York office, is the firm’s global vice-chair of
litigation. Like Sidley, Paul Hastings is a top-tier,
large law firm with a highly diversified practice
and many offices around the world. But, unlike
Sidley, its presence in Chicago is new; the firm
opened an office here just a few years ago. The
office is relatively small (currently 43 lawyers),
but it is in an active growth mode.
“Kurt told me they were strategically seeking
to grow the Chicago office through lateral partner
hiring,” Sundvall says. Since the Chicago office
opened, they have hired partners from some of
the top firms in the country including Kirkland &
Ellis, Mayer Brown, and Jones Day.
Sundvall agreed to meet Hansson for dinner,
and he sold her on the opportunity that
presented itself at Paul Hastings. “The idea of
being part of a small, but growing, office of an
elite global firm that handles high-stakes
litigation — with the depth of talent and
resources that go along with that — was very
intriguing to me,” says Sundvall. “There is a
renewed energy in making a move midway
through your career like this, particularly when
you are joining an entrepreneurial group of
lawyers who have recently made similar moves
from other top law firms.”
Couple all this with the synergies created by
the mutual GE relationships, and the firm’s
willingness to accommodate her desire to work
flexible, reduced hours, and the offer was too
good to pass up, she says. So in April 2010, at
age 47, she joined Paul Hastings and became the
most senior female lawyer in the Chicago office.
Achieving a Work-Life Balance
Being a successful attorney at a large firm is
an enormous commitment. It is not easy to find
time to raise a family and have a successful
career given the amount of billable hours that
are required. Sundvall, a mother of two young
children, believes there are no right or wrong
answers when trying to find a balance.
“I have now learned through experience that,
until you personally face the difficult decisions
that must be made (about) having children and
finding a good work-life balance, you cannot
fully appreciate the challenges these issues
present to women lawyers. I certainly never did.
“There really is no perfect time in one’s legal
career to have children, nor is there any widely
accepted view of the ideal work-life balance.
These issues involve very personal, highly
individualized choices that vary dramatically
from person to person.”
Sheila Sundvall met her husband while she
was in college, and they have been together for
28 years now. He moved to Chicago, and she
followed him shortly afterward upon graduating
from law school. Even though they had been
together for quite a while, plans to expand the
family got put on hold.
“In my own situation, my husband and I were
so busy during our 30s, pursuing very satisfying
and fulfilling professional careers — I was
developing my niche and managing my cases
at Sidley, while my husband was starting and
growing his own business — that it was easy
to put off the decision to have children,”
says Sundvall.
“By waiting until I was nearly 42, and a ninthyear partner, to have my first child, both my
husband and I were very established in our
careers and well-settled socially and financially.
So we felt better prepared to deal with the
demands of parenting. And, as a result, I think
it has been easier for me to balance family and
my career. While I am certainly not advocating
that other women delay motherhood as long as
I did, for me, it has proven to be a great
decision, and I would do it all over again.”
Still, given the amount of time her job
requires, some helping hands are necessary.
“First and foremost, I have an incredibly
supportive husband who, while he runs his own
publishing firm, still has more flexibility than I do
in his work schedule. He is one of the most
participatory fathers and husbands I know. He
drives our 3- and 5-year-old girls to school
every morning, grocery shops, and cooks. Yes,
it’s too good to be true, I know,” says Sundvall.
“Second, we have a phenomenal, full-time
SM
nanny who is an integral part of our family.
Because of her, I can leave for work every
morning without any worries or feelings of guilt,
knowing my children are in the best care.
“Third, we are committed to living in the city
to substantially reduce our commute time. It is
a five- to 10-minute cab ride from my office to
home, and from my office to my children’s
school, which helps maximize my time at home
with my children on a daily basis, and allows
me to attend important school events.”
“Last, but not least, an important part of the
equation for achieving a happy work-life
balance is having the opportunity to work a
flexible, reduced-hours schedule at this stage
in my life when I have young children at home.
And Paul Hastings has been wonderful about
accommodating my needs in this regard.”
But, because practicing law is a serviceoriented business, a reduced-hours work
arrangement does not mean working a fixed
number of hours a week and then being
unavailable. “I don’t think it’s realistic for any
lawyer to expect to be able to work a set
schedule from 9 to 5 three or four days a
week,” Sundvall says.
“In the legal profession our clients’ demands
are 24/7. So, for me, reduced hours still means
working Monday through Friday and — when
client deadlines require— nights and weekends,
too. But the goal is to manage my workload over
time so as to afford more flexibility to leave work
when necessary to attend to family needs,
without the pressure to make up those hours to
meet a specific billable-hours requirement.”
Sundvall does not expect to achieve the
ideal work-life balance on a daily, or even a
weekly basis; her aim is to find an acceptable
balance over the course of some longer period
of time. It is a work-in-progress that presents its
daily challenges, but she is up to the task. “It is
my view that, if a working mother doesn’t truly
enjoy going to work every day, she will not be
motivated to make the sacrifices and effort to
find an acceptable work-life balance.”
Sundvall has found her niche and truly
enjoys what she does. There is little doubt her
transition to Paul Hastings will be successful. ■
This article originally appeared in Leading Lawyers Magazine—Business Edition for 2010 and has been reprinted with permission. © 2010 Law Bulletin Publishing Co.