A neighborhood firm, in the courtroom and the boardroom.

Founding attorney

Abdul Kadir Mohamed

Founding Attorney · Licensed in Illinois & Missouri

People usually call a lawyer because something important has become uncertain. A family is trying to recover after a serious injury. A person wants to keep an immigration process from being derailed by a mistake. A physician or founder is deciding how to build a practice without creating the problem that will surface two years later. A regulated business has a deadline, an investigation, a contract, or a risk that cannot be delegated to a template. In each of those moments, the client needs more than a rule. The client needs a lawyer who can see the decision, build the record, and explain what happens next.

That is the practice Abdul Kadir Mohamed built. His career combines litigation with the kind of operational responsibility that most lawyers encounter only from the outside. He has tried serious injury cases involving individuals and municipalities to successful jury verdicts. That courtroom experience matters even when a case resolves without trial, because trial teaches a lawyer to separate what can be asserted from what can actually be proved. It teaches economy. A jury will not reward a lawyer for knowing more facts than anyone else if the lawyer cannot show why those facts matter. The same is true when advising a client across a conference table.

Over fifteen years of legal practice, Abdul has also served inside complex organizations where the legal answer had to work in real life. He has been in-house general counsel, chief compliance officer, and corporate secretary for multi-state, vertically integrated medical and adult-use cannabis start-ups, and in-house general counsel and privacy officer for multi-site healthcare organizations. In those settings, an incomplete contract could interrupt operations, a missed regulatory deadline could threaten a license, and a weak privacy process could put patient trust at risk. The work required legal judgment, but it also required implementation: assigning responsibility, documenting decisions, training people, testing controls, and being able to explain the result when a regulator, business partner, board member, or executive asked why a decision was made.

That combination shapes how Lincoln Square Law handles client matters. Litigation is approached as a problem of proof. Compliance is approached as a problem of operations. Contracts are approached as decision systems, not collections of clauses. Immigration work is organized around the people whose lives depend on the documents being correct. The common thread is preparation. We build chronologies, identify deadlines early, test assumptions against the documents, and tell clients where uncertainty actually exists rather than burying it in legal language.

Abdul holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Iowa and earned his Juris Doctor with a Health Law Certificate from Saint Louis University School of Law. He is licensed in Illinois and Missouri and completed the Sustainability Strategies to Transform Your Business certificate at Stanford Graduate School of Business. His privacy, compliance, and AI governance credentials include AIGP, CIPP/US, CHC, CHPC, and CCEP. Those credentials support the firm’s work with healthcare practices, data governance, artificial intelligence, and regulated businesses, but they are not the point of the representation. The point is what that training lets the firm do for a client: ask better questions, recognize the issue before it becomes a crisis, and translate technical rules into decisions a person or business can actually carry out.

Why clients choose a boutique firm

Lincoln Square Law is intentionally small. The lawyer responsible for the strategy is the lawyer who knows the file. That matters when a case turns on a detail from an early conversation, when a regulator calls with a question that cannot wait for a handoff, or when a client needs to know whether a development changes the plan. Small does not mean casual. It means the relationship between preparation and accountability is direct.

We also believe clients should understand the work being done for them. Advice should identify the decision first, then the rule, then the evidence and tradeoffs that control the choice. A client should leave a meeting knowing what happens next, what we need from them, what could change the analysis, and which deadline matters. When the law is uncertain, we say so. When a position is strong, we explain why. When a case needs to be prepared for a jury, we prepare it for a jury rather than assuming it will settle.

Representation built around people, not file numbers

Legal matters are not experienced as categories. A personal injury case may also involve work, insurance, or immigration issues. A physician opening a practice may be thinking about professional licensure, a lease, privacy, employment, and family finances at the same time. A business owner may need a contract answer today and a governance structure that still works after the company grows. We try to see that whole picture while keeping the legal work disciplined and focused.

Every new matter begins with a conflicts check and a conversation about the client’s objective. We identify deadlines and preserve them with backup calendaring. We ask clients to bring the records that will let us evaluate the matter rather than asking them to tell the same story repeatedly. We protect sensitive details by moving them to appropriate channels instead of encouraging people to put everything into a website form.

For litigation clients, our courtroom experience informs the work from the beginning. Evidence is preserved with admissibility and credibility in mind. Witnesses are identified before memories fade. Medical and financial records are organized so damages can be explained rather than merely totaled. Settlement is evaluated against what can be proved, the risks of trial, the client’s priorities, and the practical cost of delay. A negotiated result can be the right result, but it should be chosen from a position of preparation rather than fear of the courtroom.

For business and healthcare clients, the same discipline appears differently. We map the workflow before drafting the policy. We read the contract against the operation it is supposed to govern. We identify who owns a compliance task, what record proves it happened, and how the organization will respond if something goes wrong. The goal is not to create a binder that looks impressive on a shelf. It is to create legal infrastructure that people can use on Monday morning.