Overview

Samantha focuses her practice on litigation, with an emphasis on trade secrets. She is committed to helping businesses protect their proprietary information and maintain a competitive advantage by carefully handling complex trade secret issues. Her experience includes conducting legal research and drafting a variety of memoranda, briefs and discovery.

Before joining Benesch, Samantha served as a judicial intern for the Honorable Chief Judge Sara Darrow in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. In law school, she was the Executive Editor of Research and Marketing for the Loyola Law Journal and a student attorney with Loyola’s Health Justice Project. This medical-legal partnership addresses systemic barriers impacting vulnerable communities.

Credentials

Education

Spring Arbor University, 2019, B.A., Communications, summa cum laude  
  • Minor in Psychology
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, 2024, cum laude
  • Loyola Law Journal Executive Editor, Research and Marketing (vol. 55)
  • CALI Award, Legal Writing III

Bar & Court Admissions

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Illinois

Related News & Insights

Client Alerts & Insights 6.11.26

Versata v. Ford: Federal Circuit Reinstates $82M Award and Opens Door to Even Greater Damages

Recently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Michigan’s ruling that Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) misappropriated Versata Software Inc.’s (“Versata”) trade secrets and breached a software licensing agreement. The three-judge panel ordered a new trial on trade secret damages, finding that the lower court improperly limited available damages theories, and reinstated the jury’s $82.3 million award from Ford’s breach of the software licensing agreement.

Client Alerts & Insights 5.1.26

$2B Trade Secrets Verdict Overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court

Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court vacated a $2B jury award and ordered a new trial in a state trade secrets action. The justices held that the circuit court judge made four significant errors leading to Virginia’s largest jury award. Significantly, according to the justices, the circuit court judge put an improper burden of proof on defendants to show that its sales were unrelated to the misappropriation to avoid plaintiff being awarded defendant’s full sales revenue as opposed to the plaintiff having the burden to show defendant’s actions proximately caused plaintiff’s damages.