Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP v. Chicago Shakespeare Theater Case Study: Design Specifications, Professional Standard of Care, and Elevator Dispute

Case Overview

Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP v. Chicago Shakespeare Theater is an Illinois appellate case about design responsibility, project specifications, and the expert proof required to support a claim that an architect failed to meet a professional standard of care. The dispute grew out of the development of The Yard, an indoor performance venue at Navy Pier, and centered on whether the elevator specifications matched the theater’s actual operating demands once the venue opened to the public. Chicago Shakespeare Theater retained Charcoalblue, a theater design consultancy, and Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP to provide certain design services for the lobby pavilion and exterior enclosure while also serving as architect of record for The Yard project.

During the design process, the parties explored using Savaria Orion limited use / limited application elevators against the backdrop of the project’s limited budget. Chicago Shakespeare Theater later alleged that Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill specified a limited-use elevator system that could not meet the theater’s performance requirements. After The Yard opened in 2017, the elevators experienced major operational failures, patrons became trapped, and the system was eventually replaced with hydraulic elevators. Even so, the appellate court did not decide the case based on those failures alone. Instead, it focused on whether Chicago Shakespeare Theater presented competent expert testimony identifying the architect’s professional standard of care and explaining how that standard was breached. The court affirmed summary judgment against the theater’s counterclaim, holding that evidence of malfunction and system unsuitability was not enough without expert proof tied to the architect’s legal duty.

Timeline of the Case, Elevator Dispute, and Major Legal Developments

2013 - Chicago Shakespeare Theater Begins Planning The Yard

In 2013, Chicago Shakespeare Theater began planning to convert its outdoor Chicago Skyline Stage at Navy Pier into a flexible indoor venue known as The Yard. The project was designed to support multiple performance layouts through movable seating towers and adaptable staging arrangements. That concept created significant coordination and design demands involving circulation, accessibility, and technical systems. Those practical requirements later became part of the dispute over whether the selected elevator system matched the venue’s intended use.

April 2014 - Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Is Engaged for Design Services

In April 2014, Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP entered into a sub-consultant agreement to provide certain design services for the lobby pavilion and exterior enclosure and to serve as architect of record for The Yard project. At that point, the project was moving through design development while performance requirements and budget limitations were both affecting project decisions. That setting later mattered because the disagreement over elevator specifications developed while the team was weighing those competing concerns.

Late 2014 to March 2015 - Elevator Specifications Become a Central Project Issue

As the project moved forward, the parties considered using Savaria Orion limited use / limited application elevators. The record shows growing concern over whether that type of elevator was appropriate for a public theater expected to handle regular patron traffic. Project communications raised questions about code review, Elevator Bureau approval, ADA compliance, and whether the system was suitable for continuous public use.

By March 2015, those concerns had become more pronounced. The general contractor raised questions after receiving input from elevator bidders and others who doubted whether the specified system matched the building’s actual demands. Those warnings later became central to the litigation because Chicago Shakespeare Theater argued that Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill had specified elevators that could not meet the theater’s performance requirements.

November 1, 2015 - Owner-Architect Agreement Defines Professional Care Obligations

On November 1, 2015, the parties entered into a written owner-architect agreement that more directly addressed both earlier and later services. The agreement stated that services performed before February 25, 2015, were to have been performed with professional care, and that services after that date were governed by the contract’s express professional care standard. That language later became central because Chicago Shakespeare Theater relied on it in arguing that the firm failed to satisfy the required level of professional performance.

2017 - The Yard Opens and Elevator Failures Lead to Replacement

When The Yard opened in 2017, all four limited-use elevators failed to operate correctly, and patrons were trapped inside. The record indicates that some of the early problems were tied to improper installation of two of the elevators, but it also shows that the elevators continued to malfunction after those installation issues were addressed. Chicago Shakespeare Theater later retained an elevator consultant, and the limited-use system was eventually replaced with hydraulic elevators.

Those failures supplied the factual backdrop for the case, but they did not decide the legal issue by themselves. The later court rulings made clear that operational problems alone did not establish a breach of professional duty. The central question was whether those failures could be tied, through qualified expert testimony, to a violation of the architect’s professional standard of care.

2018 - Fee Collection Suit and Counterclaim Begin the Litigation

In 2018, Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP filed suit against Chicago Shakespeare Theater. The complaint sought payment on allegedly unpaid invoices related to replacing the limited-use elevators and a 2015 reimbursable expense. Chicago Shakespeare Theater responded with a counterclaim alleging that the firm failed to perform its services with the level of professional care required under the owner-architect agreement.

The counterclaim focused on the architect’s elevator-related design decisions and on the allegation that the specified elevators could not satisfy the theater’s actual performance needs. At that point, the dispute moved from a project-performance problem into formal litigation over contractual duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Discovery Phase - Expert Testimony Becomes the Decisive Issue

During discovery, Chicago Shakespeare Theater disclosed Dennis Olson as an elevator expert and Adam Tymowski as a damages expert. It later disclosed Olson and Elliott Dudnik as rebuttal experts, with Dudnik expected to address standard-of-care issues. Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP disclosed five experts, four of whom were expected to testify that the firm met the applicable standard of care.

This stage became decisive because the dispute turned less on whether the elevators performed poorly and more on whether the theater could prove professional fault in the legally required way. Technical criticism of the elevator system was not enough on its own. Chicago Shakespeare Theater needed expert testimony that identified the relevant architectural standard of care and explained how the architect’s conduct fell below it.

September 27, 2024 - Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment

The trial court granted summary judgment against Chicago Shakespeare Theater on its counterclaim, and the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed on September 27, 2024. The appellate court held that because the counterclaim depended on whether Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill met the required professional standard of care, Chicago Shakespeare Theater had to present competent expert testimony establishing both the standard and the alleged departure from it.

The court found that Dennis Olson’s opinions addressed elevator performance problems, system limitations, and suitability concerns, but did not identify the architect’s professional standard of care or explain how Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill failed to comply with it. The court also made clear that the mere fact that the elevators malfunctioned did not, by itself, establish a breach of duty. As a result, the theater’s counterclaim could not survive summary judgment.

Confirmed Expert Witnesses and Common Expert Roles in the Case

1. Dennis Olson - Elevator Expert Witness

   Dennis Olson was publicly identified in the appellate record as an expert disclosed by Chicago Shakespeare Theater. In a dispute like this, an elevator consultant may evaluate system suitability, performance limitations, code-related concerns, and whether a specified elevator type was appropriate for the intended building use. In this case, however, the court concluded that Olson’s opinions did not establish the architect’s professional standard of care or explain how that duty was breached.

2. Adam Tymowski - Damages Expert Witness

   Adam Tymowski was publicly identified in the appellate record as a damages expert disclosed by Chicago Shakespeare Theater. In this type of case, a damages expert may evaluate replacement costs, project-related financial losses, and other claimed economic effects tied to an alleged design failure. Even so, damages evidence only becomes important if liability is established first.

3. Elliott Dudnik - Rebuttal Expert Witness on Standard-of-Care Issues

   Elliott Dudnik was publicly identified in the appellate record as a rebuttal expert disclosed by Chicago Shakespeare Theater. In design-related litigation, this kind of expert may address whether an architect’s decisions, specifications, and coordination efforts satisfied the professional duty expected under similar circumstances. His expected role shows how important standard-of-care testimony had become by the summary judgment stage.

4. Plaintiff’s Standard-of-Care Expert Witness

   The appellate opinion states that Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP disclosed five experts, four of whom were expected to testify that the firm met the applicable standard of care. In cases like this, those experts commonly address professional practice, design judgment, coordination, and the reasonableness of project decisions under the circumstances. Their presence also reflects a larger point: once a design dispute is framed as a professional-duty claim, expert analysis often becomes central on both sides.

Why the Expert-Proof Issue Decided the Elevator Dispute

1. The case was not decided by elevator failure alone

   The elevator problems made the dispute more concrete, but they did not resolve the legal issue. The decisive question was whether Chicago Shakespeare Theater had the expert proof needed to show that the architect’s conduct fell below the required professional standard of care.

2. The dispute turned on whether the specified system could meet the theater’s performance needs

   Chicago Shakespeare Theater argued that Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill specified limited-use elevators that could not satisfy the venue’s actual operating demands. That argument gave the case practical importance for owners and design teams dealing with systems that must function reliably in a public, high-use setting.

3. A poor project outcome does not automatically prove professional liability

   The appellate court made clear that evidence of malfunction, delay, or replacement costs does not by itself establish that an architect violated a professional duty. Courts still require proof of what the architect was obligated to do and how that obligation was allegedly breached.

4. Expert testimony must address the legal standard, not only the technical problem

   That was the key weakness in the theater’s counterclaim. Technical opinions about suitability, code concerns, or performance limitations may support a broader theory, but they are not enough unless the expert also explains the applicable professional standard of care and the claimed departure from it.

5. Contract language can frame the entire dispute

   Here, the owner-architect agreement supplied the professional care language that became central to the theater’s theory of liability. Once that happened, the counterclaim required proof that matched the contract-based professional-duty issue the court was actually being asked to decide.

Conclusion

This case turned a project-design dispute into a careful lesson about proof in litigation involving an architect’s professional obligations. Chicago Shakespeare Theater faced elevator failures, public operational problems, and the cost of replacing the system. Even so, the appellate court focused on a narrower and more demanding question: whether the theater presented expert evidence that directly established the architect’s professional duty and explained how that duty was breached.

That makes the case useful for owners, architects, and litigators dealing with disputes over specifications that do not align with a building’s actual operating demands. The opinion shows that a visible project failure can create a strong factual narrative, but it will not carry a professional-duty claim unless the expert testimony speaks directly to the legal standard governing the architect’s conduct. In that sense, the case is not simply about elevators. It is about the difference between proving that a system failed and proving that an architect is legally responsible for that failure.