Back to Search Results

Brendan John Hammer

Also known as Brendan Hammer
Brendan John Hammer

7.8

Very Good

Experience 3.5 star rating
Industry Recognition 3.0 star rating
Professional Conduct 5.0 star rating

Find out more about the Avvo Rating

Client Ratings

Not yet reviewed
No professional misconduct found.

Overview

Practice Areas

  • 75% Divorce / Separation
  • 15% Marriage / Prenuptials
  • 10% Family

Contact Information

  • Berger Schatz
    161 North Clark Street Suite 2800
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Office: 312-782-●●●● - show
    View map

References

Client Reviews

How would you rate this lawyer?

If you're a current or former client, share your thoughts (anonymously, if you prefer). Would you recommend this lawyer to other clients?

Review this lawyer

Endorsements

Endorse a fellow lawyer, get more visits to your profile

In addition to providing a simple way to express your gratitude to fellow lawyers, any time you add an endorsement to a peer's profile, a link to your profile will appear on it.

Endorse this lawyer

Résumé

Licenses

  • 2 years since Brendan John Hammer was first licensed to practice law in IL.

See license details


We have not found any instances of professional misconduct for this lawyer.

Work Experience

Position Duration
Associate Attorney at Berger Schatz 2007–present

Education

School Major Degree Graduated
DePaul University College of Law Law JD - Juris Doctor (Magna Cum Laude) 2007
Indiana University (Cum Laude)

Awards

Award Name Granting Organization Date
DePaul Law Review (Staff Member) DePaul University College of Law
Fellow in Schiller DuCanto & Fleck Family Law Center DePaul University College of Law
See all 6 awards

Associations

Position Association Name Duration
Member American Bar Association
Chicago Bar Association
See all 5 association entries

Portfolio

Publications

Article Publication Date
A Divorce Practitioner's Introduction to Determining Schedule C and Subchapter S Income, Co-Authored with Barry A. Schatz Family Law Update 2010
Tainted Love: What the Seventh Circuit Got Wrong in Muth v. Frank DePaul Law Review 2007