Dan Webb, co-executive chairman of Winston & Strawn.

One of the nation's largest law firms may have reached the end in a rare case involving a rogue court clerk, a trial lawyer accused of fraud, multiple claims of victory by both sides and, as of Tuesday, a publicly traded company on the hook for a $25 million settlement.

That is the series of events that kicked off nearly three years ago when a Chicago courthouse clerk tipped off local plaintiffs lawyer Mark McNabola that a jury had asked a question indicating it was leaning in the defense's favor. Without the defendants being aware of the jury's question, McNabola reached a $25 million settlement. A judge in Cook County, Illinois, then allowed the jury to return a verdict for the defense.

The saga, which included a quasi-retrial in state court before the Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear the case, may have finally concluded on April 10. A federal court upheld the settlement and dismissed a suit brought by Brunswick Corp. that alleged misconduct in the case “directly implicated the integrity of the judicial system in Cook County” and sought damages from McNabola, his law firm and the former court clerk, Tatiana Agee.

The underlying case was a personal injury claim brought by Scot Vandenberg, who is now a quadriplegic after suffering a 12-foot fall on a yacht manufactured by Brunswick, a suburban Chicago-based manufacturer of fitness, maritime and recreational products.

Dan Webb, an American Lawyer Lifetime Achiever and top litigator at Winston & Strawn, where he serves as co-executive chairman, represented Brunswick in the federal case against McNabola and others. Webb, who last year secured a massive settlement on behalf of Beef Products Inc. over the company's controversial “pink slime,” did not return a request for comment about whether Brunswick would appeal the ruling.

McNabola's lawyer, Edward Feldman, a partner at Windy City-based litigation boutique Miller Shakman & Beem, said the ruling vindicated his client, a personal injury lawyer who had his “name and reputation attacked.”

“Mark was certainly not happy to have his reputation falsely attacked in that way,” Feldman said. “But the important thing is that the attacks failed. And the most important thing is that the Vandenbergs' $25 million settlement that Mark negotiated for them has been affirmed. Hopefully soon they will get the compensation that has been long overdue for them.”

The dispute in the case centers around a frenzied and disputed 45 minutes on June 9, 2015.

At 3:50 p.m. on that day, the Cook County jury sent in a question asking whether it could find fault with the owner of the Lake Michigan-based yacht, RQM, without finding fault with Brunswick. RQM had already settled and was an “empty-chair defendant” throughout the two-week trial.

Two minutes later, the clerk, Agee, called McNabola and told him the jury's question, which was not typical.

McNabola's response has been hotly contested and is the basis for his lawyer's comments about his reputation being attacked. In an evidentiary-style hearing in Cook County court in October 2015, McNabola said it was a “bold-faced lie” that he told Agee to “hold off” on calling the defense counsel so he could broker a settlement.

Phone records produced in that hearing show a call was placed from Agee to McNabola's phone at 3:52 p.m., while Agee called 27 minutes later to a lawyer for the defense, John Patton, a senior partner at Chicago's Patton & Ryan. (Winston & Strawn was not involved in the defense of the initial personal injury claim.)

In the interim, McNabola spoke with Patton and said the jury was still deliberating, but did not mention the jury question, according to Brunswick's complaint. McNabola and a claims adjuster for the insurance company reached a $25 million settlement—an offer previously turned down by McNabola—shortly thereafter.

The parties convened in the judge's chambers about 45 minutes after the jury question was initially sent in. After expressing some confusion as to why it took them so long to convene, a defense lawyer said they came as soon as they learned there was a question. It was only then that they learned the contents of that question. The judge then put the settlement on record.

Unaware of the settlement, the jury reached a defense verdict about 10 minutes later.

In the subsequent evidentiary hearing, a judicial extern testified that she overheard Agee tell McNabola the contents of the jury question. The extern also alleged that Agee said she held off on calling the defense counsel in order “to give the plaintiffs … a little more of an opportunity to kind of settle or figure this out” and to “give the plaintiffs an advantage,” according to Brunswick's complaint.

Following that hearing, a Cook County judge vacated the settlement in January 2016 and later entered the defense verdict after reconstituting the jury and polling them on whether they had delivered a unanimous verdict.

That judge then recused himself and a third judge entered an order in December 2016 finding the settlement enforceable and vacating all the previous orders inconsistent with that finding. That order was upheld late last year by an Illinois appeals court and the Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear Brunswick's appeal.

Brunswick hired Winston & Strawn to act offensively in undoing the $25 million settlement. In December 2016, the firm filed suit against McNabola in a Chicago federal court, alleging fraud and negligence by McNabola and arguing that his communications with Agee violated Brunswick's constitutional right to a fair trial.

But U.S. District Judge Manish Shah of the Northern District of Illinois said that a jury verdict is not a protected property interest, which is what Brunswick must have been deprived of in order to state a due process claim.

“Brunswick reasons that a jury verdict is a judgment, and a judgment is a protected property interest. This is incorrect,” Shah wrote. “A final judgment—one that is no longer subject to review or modification—is a property interest protectable by due process. But a jury verdict is not. A jury's verdict is the basis upon which a judgment may be entered.”

Shah dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and dismissed the state claims without prejudice in his April 10 ruling.

Feldman, McNabola's lawyer, said he was pleased with the opinion.

“I'm hoping that the whole shooting match is over between Brunswick and the Vandenbergs and between Brunswick and Mark McNabola,” Feldman said.