Practice Focus


  • Law Clerk to the Honorable Cheryl Ann Krause of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit


J.D., Stanford Law School, 2015

  • Articles Committee Editor, Stanford Law Review

B.A., Washington University in St. Louis, 2011,

  • summa cum laude
  • Phi Beta Kappa

Bar Admissions

  • Illinois

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Greg Schweizer is an associate at Eimer Stahl LLP.  His practice includes representations in complex commercial and contract litigation, antitrust disputes, and internal investigations.  Greg also has an active pro bono practice representing victims of hate crimes.  Prior to joining the firm, Greg served as a law clerk to the Honorable Cheryl Ann Krause of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 

During law school, Greg was an articles editor on the Stanford Law Review and was recognized for submitting an outstanding brief during the Marion Rice Kirkwood Moot Court competition.  Before law school, Greg spent a year as a staff assistant on Capitol Hill.

Highlighted Cases

  • Defending a group of corporate affiliates in federal court in Delaware against a series of fraudulent transfer actions, in which creditors of a foreign sovereign parent corporation seek to hold affiliates liable based on alleged transfers in excess of $2 billion.
  • Defended against class action in the Northern District of Illinois in which Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants, manufacturers of containerboard which is used to make cardboard boxes, conspired to restrict the supply of containerboard in order to increase the price.
  • Represented defendant company in consolidated antitrust suit by purported indirect purchasers alleging price fixing of urethane chemicals.
  • Represented a pharmaceutical company conducting an internal investigation of an alleged breach of company ethics policy related to the vendor selection process for a multi-million dollar project.
  • Represents a life insurance company in a suit alleging that a nearly-century old state statute requires the company to pay a very substantial proportion of its retained earnings as dividends to policyholders under a novel and unprecedented interpretation of insurance law (despite the absence of any prior enforcement by the state’s insurance regulatory body).