In December 2004, Stanley and Joyce Boim, clients of Wildman Harrold, made history after a federal magistrate in Chicago ordered four Islamic charities and an alleged fundraiser for the Palestinian militant group Hamas to pay more than $150 million in damages for the 1991 murder of their son David in the West Bank. In leading the effort on behalf of the Boims, partners Rick Hoffman and Steve Landes were assisted by several other attorneys at the firm. Among those on the team was Jeremy Goldkind, who actually began working on the case as a Summer Associate here in 2003 following his 2L year at the University of Iowa College of Law.

Before getting his J.D. in 2004 and returning to the firm, Jeremy served as Co-President of Iowa's Student Bar Association and was a member of the school's National Moot Court team. In a recent interview for this website, he described the assignments and responsibility that he was given on the Boim case, his interaction with the partners and the rest of the team, and the excitement of being involved in such a matter--including the opportunity to participate at the trial itself. Here in his own words, is Jeremy's account:

I started working on the Boim case about a week after arriving as a Summer Associate in 2003. You can imagine how excited I was to have the opportunity to get involved with such an important case right away. All I had to hear was that I was going to be working on a high profile terrorism case against Hamas (which I was familiar with as my family is Jewish and my parents lived in Israel when they were younger).

When I got my first assignment--which consisted of reading a non-fiction book by Steven Emerson about terrorism and how it operates covertly in the United States--I knew that I was working on something much bigger than the normal case. It was exciting enough to be starting a new career, but it was unimaginable to start a career working on a case of this magnitude.

Besides reading the book, my first assignment was to research legal theories that could apply to the case. I quickly teamed up with Deb Morgan, a fellow summer associate. The person that I dealt most closely with on my summer assignments was Steve Landes. We all understood the magnitude of the case when we attended our first meeting with the entire Boim team. Just looking around the room at a team of almost 10 people let us get a glimpse of what we were dealing with. Steve did a great job explaining the basics of the case, but I was even more impressed with the amount of responsibility that he put on all of the associates and summer associates. We were expected to learn about the case and be prepared to become actively engaged immediately.

The partners and associates on the case were incredibly helpful through the entire process. Rick Hoffman in a matter of a few weeks made me a much better legal writer, and Steve was always around to discuss ideas and thoughts about the case. The most impressive thing was watching how much responsibility the partners gave Dave Oppenheim, who was only a second year. They suggested we speak with him with many of our questions, and Dave was always an incredible support system. The doors were always open.

The support was consistent and accessible, and the feedback was the same. There were times when I thought that we were going through carloads of red pens after I turned in preliminary drafts of assignments, but the feedback helped make my writing more concise and made me more confident in my own abilities. Everyone on the team from partner to first year helped make a solid foundation of support and there was not a day over the three months leading to trial that we were not in contact with someone or everyone on the team. It was an opportunity that many attorneys may never have; to work on a large team of incredibly talented attorneys and staff all with the same ultimate objective.

The Boim case was a project that continued all summer and started back up when I came back to work full time this year. As a summer associate, I actually wrote my most substantive piece of work for Boim. I was asked to research a wide variety of issues dealing with comity, our court's acceptance of international confessions, international court decisions and various admissibility issues. Coming into law school, I wanted to practice international law. This case provided me with this opportunity as well as a broad spectrum of other opportunities. I wrote a 30-page memo addressing the issues asked of me by Steve Landes. Ultimately, I made him a 5-page questionnaire based on my findings to bring to Israel with him so he knew the type of questions that he had to ask the witnesses he was interviewing and the people he was meeting with. Apart from that, there was never a moment when I didn't have a Boim assignment on my plate. When some time opened up, I went looking for more Boim assignments. I couldn't get enough.

There were other incredible opportunities that Boim presented as well. I went to court many times to watch Steve and Rick argue motions, and watched Dave Oppenheim take Linda Abusharif's deposition (She was the wife of Ibrahim Abusharif, who was defendant Quranic Literacy Institute's (QLI) treasurer.)

When I went back for my 3L year, I kept my eye on the news to see if anything was happening with the case, and it was the first thing I asked about every time I came to the firm to visit while at school or was in contact with anyone at the firm. I expressed interest in remaining involved and was promised the opportunity to do so when I returned.

Since I have been back, I have had assignments on my plate since day one. I was charged with the responsibility of writing all of the motions in limine for the plaintiffs in the case. Some of these motions included a motion to bar mention of Palestinian/Israeli relations outside of the context of the case, various 5th Amendment motions and adverse inference motions, and a motion to bar defendant Muhammad Salah's lawyer from attesting to his credibility. In all, I wrote twelve motions in limine that took me almost a month. I wrote trial subpoenas and a motion to apply the jury verdict to defaulted defendants. Apart from that, I did many research assignments and memos including a memo about bank recording statutes and another about the use of inadmissible evidence by experts at trial. I did assignments dealing with charting the financials of QLI, charting out defendant Islamic Association of Palestine's motions in limine, and researching background information about various witnesses to help prepare for their examination.

There was always plenty of work and I got to jump right in and see what it was like to help prepare for a trial. I really felt like an important part of the team and it was incredible to see how a small assignment can make such a huge impact on a case and the decisions made based on our findings.

I was at trial every day but one. Most of the time I was there observing since I did not have any of the witnesses to help prepare, but one day I was asked to help with parts of the jury selection process. All in all it was an absolutely incredible experience to watch a case develop, unfold and go from start to finish, all before your eyes. I saw jury selection, opening, examination, closing and verdict. I watched two amazing trial attorneys take all of the facts that we had developed, all of the law that we had researched, and the work that we had all put into the case and present it to a jury.

I can't describe the feeling when the verdict was announced. I realized that I was not as involved in the case as I had wanted to be. It made me jealous of those who had actually had the incredible opportunity to be with the case from start to finish, at all times. But

it was an amazing feeling. I think we all got teary eyed. Not because we had a sense of satisfaction from winning such an important case, but rather knowing that the two wonderful parents of David Boim had some closure of their own. We don't know what it is like to lose a child to terrorism, but we watched the pain of David's parents in their testimony and when I had the opportunity to take them to lunch each day, and we felt a certain sense of peace for them that there had been some small amount of retribution to help them cope with their loss. Nothing could bring David back, but we all felt a great satisfaction that we did all we could do to help a loving and kind family regain some peace.

I told Rick the day that the verdict came in that I was going to retire. I had worked on the case of a lifetime, helped make law and achieve what has never been achieved before, and secured a verdict that was phenomenal. What else can I possibly do in my law career? In all reality, I am sure that I will miss the case and the relationships that I formed with everyone working on the team. It almost feels now like the movie "Breakfast Club." Everyone spent a ton of time together working constantly, then the case was over, and we all went back to our own respective cases that we were working on. I have many other cases to concentrate on, but my experience on the Boim case is one that I will never forget. Not many first year associates can say they had the opportunity to work on a groundbreaking case, a case that sets precedent.

What now? I am actively involved with toxic tort cases as well as diet Drug litigation, both with other fantastic teams of attorneys. I have taken on a pro-bono experience and a small case in order to get some more hands-on trial experience. Everything at the firm so far has been great.