.

David J. Shannon

Chair, Privacy and Data Security

Chair, Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Litigation

Portrait of David J. Shannon

David chairs both the Privacy and Data Security Practice Group and the Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Litigation Practice Group. He concentrates a substantial portion of his practice on privacy law, data breaches, intellectual property, copyright and trademark infringement, as well as trade secret, trade dress technology and media related litigation. David is experienced defending privacy and intellectual property cases venued throughout the United States and has been litigating cases in federal and state courts since 1994. David is a national and international featured speaker at privacy and data security conferences and seminars. His presentations focus on legal issues and emerging trends in the insurance industry with an emphasis on all areas of privacy, data breach and data security.

David additionally represents design professionals in a variety of construction industry related claims.  He has extensive experience representing architects, engineers, surveyors, land developers, commercial property owners, general contractors, subcontractors and commercial landscapers.  David has defended clients in cases that involved claims for design errors and omissions and other contractual and negligence claims. Over the past 25 years, he has tried a number of bench trials, jury trials, and arbitrations.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1994)
    • Denison University (B.A., 1990)
    • New Jersey, 1994
    • Pennsylvania, 1994
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1998
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1998
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2000
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2006
    • Legal 500 Philadelphia Legal Elite, Intellectual Property (2025-2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2005, 2026)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association, IP Law Section, Past Chair
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Professional Liability Underwriting Society
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2026, Episode 1, Law Firm Cyber Attacks & the New Financial Sector Regulatory Landscape, June 2026
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2025Episode 2, Beyond the Breach: Remediation vs. Forensic Investigation, December 2025
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2025Episode 1, "Ransomware, Business Email Compromise, AI and The Increasing Sophistication of Cyber Threat Actors," July 2025
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2024, Episode 3, Restoration After The Data Breach, December 2024
    • PLUS Podcast, Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2024, Episode 2: SEC Amendment's Impact on Compliance and Reporting, July 2024
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2024, Episode 1:The Persisting Threat of Ransomware, February 27, 2024 
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2023. Episode 2: The Current State of Ransomware Attacks in 2023. April 2023
    • Critical Infrastructure – A Global View on Cyber Risk and Systemic Threats, ILG 360º London Annual Conference 2023, March 15, 2023
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cyber Security Threats in 2023. Episode 1: Cryptojacking - New Risks For Carriers and Their Insureds. March 2023
    • Business Email Compromise & Wire Transfer Fraud - Evolving Trends and Cyber Crime, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, Presented to Multiple Clients, 2022
    • Ransomware Attacks: An Ongoing Global Threat, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, Presented to Multiple Clients, 2022
    • Ransomware Attacks: An Ongoing Global Threat, ILG Virtual Conference, March 31, 2022
    • Cybersecurity: Crucial for a Law Firm’s Survival, Moderator, Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel, November 16, 2021
    • Civil Litigation Updates in COVID-19 Litigation – Where Do We Stand One Year Later? Marshall Dennehey Webinar, May, 2021
    • Ransomware Attacks: An Ongoing Global Threat, ILG Virtual Conference, March 25, 2021
    • Cyber Security & Construction, National Association of Women in Construction, November 2020
    • Speaking Up on Silent Cyber, A.M. Best Webinar Panelist, May 2020 
    • Emerging Global Cyber Ransom Threats Require A Strategic Response From The C-Suite, A.M. Best Insurance Law Podcast, July 2018
    • Cyber Claims: What to Do?, National Conference of Insurance Guaranty Funds, November 2017 
    • Data Breaches Come in All Sizes, Beacon Technologies, April 26, 2017 
    • Cyber: Global Perspectives, Insurance Law Global, International Insurance Defence Network Conference, March 2017 
    • Cyber Security for the C Suite, panelist, SIM, February 7, 2017
    • Ethical and Statutory Concerns for Law Firms,  webinar panelist, Bloomberg & CNA Insurance, November 2, 2016
    • Cybersecurity for the C Suite, panelist, Tatum, October 26, 2016
    • Cybersecurity: Emerging Trends and the Current Regulatory Environment for Independent Financial Advisors and Independent Financial Services Firm, Financial Services Institute (FSI) webinar, September 22, 2016
    • The Changing Landscape of Cyber Liability Litigation, ACI’s 13th Advanced Forum on Cyber & Data Risk Insurance, July 29, 2016
    • Attorney Client Privilege Issues Arising out of Data Breaches, Breach Responses, and Subsequent Third Party Litigation, ACI Data Breach & Privacy Litigation and Enforcement Conference, March 18, 2016
    • Developments and Emerging Trends in the Legal and Insurance Areas of Cybersecurity, Travelers Insurance, February 2016
    • A Legislative Update From the Front Lines, DRI Data Breach and Privacy Law Conference, November 4, 2015
    • Litigation Roundup Including Recent Supreme Court Developments on Article III Standing, Injury, Damages (Spokeo v. Robins), Class Actions, and Data Breach Litigation, ACI's 17th Advanced Global Legal & Compliance Forum on Cyber Security & Data Privacy and Protection, October 5, 2015
    • Cyber Liability Insurance: New Risks & Emerging Trends, Insurance Brokers' Association of the State of New York (IBANY), September 16, 2015
    • Liability Concerns for Architects, Engineers and Construction Professionals: Pennsylvania Intellectual Property Overview, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, July 2015
    • Online Ethics: Blawgs, Directory Listings, Q & A Forums & Social Media Use and Confidentiality and Data Security, National Business Institute, April 2015
    • Cyber Hackers Are Everywhere! Are You Prepared? Philly I-Day, April 9, 2015
    • Current Trends in Data Breach First and Third-Party Claims and Litigation, American Conference Institute's Cyber & Data Risk Insurance conference, March 24, 2015
    • Hot Topics in Employment, Assurex Loss Control & Claims Conference, October 22, 2014
    • Cyber Technology, Data Breaches and Related E&O Trends, Claims and Coverage, moderator and speaker, 8th Annual ExecuSummit E&O Insurance Conference, June 2014
    • Cyber Liability Exposures, Every Business Has Them, Panelist, PLUS Mid-Atlantic Chapter Seminar, May 2014
    • Hot Topics in Employment, Marshall Dennehey / AIG Seminar, Philadelphia, PA, October 10, 2013
    • Employment Liability in the Cyber Age, Marshall Dennehey / AIG Employment Seminar, Pittsburgh, PA, May 2, 2013
    • Cyber Liability Claims, Coverage Issues, panel speaker, 2nd Annual National Cyber Liabilities Insurance ExecuSummit, 2013
    • Data Privacy Risk: Red Flags in Higher Education, ASFAA Annual Conference, 2012
    • Prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss in a data breach class action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Sixteen named plaintiffs brought claims alleging that a hacker had accessed the personal information of over 1,000,000 individuals nationwide. We defended the debt collection company whose computer servers were compromised. Plaintiffs asserted broad and novel legal theories, including negligent failure to protect data, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, negligence per se, and violations of various state consumer protection laws. We successfully contested these claims, resulting in the dismissal of eight plaintiffs for lack of standing and 15 of the 17 asserted causes of action being dismissed.
    • Successfully represented and assisted a large commercial payment card processing company in a data breach notice that affected over 2 million customers.
    • Successfully defended and resolved a multimillion dollar trademark and dilution lawsuit in the 9th Circuit that included obtaining dismissal of the dilution claim.
    • Obtained complete denial of a temporary and permanent injunction motion after a weeklong injunction hearing in a trademark dispute over a well known East Coast antique show brand.
    • Successfully resolved several copyright infringement claims by an international music recording association against various entertainment venues.
    • Obtained dismissal of all claims against a website developer on the first day of trial in a matter where plaintiff alleged significant lost profits after a new customer ordering platform was installed for plaintiff's website.
    •  Successfully resolved a significant copyright infringement claim by the heirs of a famous European author against a theater where plaintiff attempted to enjoin national theater production and claim past and future profits.
    • Defeated vicarious liability claims for trademark infringement by luxury handbag manufacturer against the owner of a large retail shopping center.  All claims were dismissed after a summary judgment motion was filed.
    • Obtained voluntary dismissal of trade secret and theft of confidential information matter where the initial demand was over $300,000 by demonstrating that no trade secrets existed in the plaintiff's manufacturing process.
    • Successfully obtained summary judgment in an architectural copyright infringement action by demonstrating that client did not infringe on the plaintiff's drawings for a country club.
    • Successfully defended international chemical company in temporary and permanent injunction hearings regarding stolen trade secrets and hiring of former plant manager. 
    • Longenecker-Wells v. Benecard Services, No. 15-3538, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15696 (3d Cir. Aug, 25, 2016).
    • Gianacopoulos v. Glen Oak Country Club, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7710 (M.D. Pa. 2007)
    • Luszczynski v. Bradley, 729 A.2d 83 (Superior 1999)

Thought Leadership

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

June 30, 2026

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security

Identity Theft Resource Center Report Reveals Rising Data Breaches Despite Drop in Mega Breaches

February 19, 2026

The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC), a well-known, non-profit identity theft and fraud prevention organization, recently released its 2025 annual data breach report with significant findings for the data breach field. The ITRC tracked 3,322 data breaches in 2025 – an increase of more than 5% compared to 2024. The numbers set a new record for U.S. data breaches tracked by the ITRC over the past 20 years. These numbers also show a 79% jump in data breaches over the last five years.  Just as importantly, the number of victim notices that were sent out decreased. In 2024, the ITRC found that over 1.3 million notices had been sent out, while in 2025 less than 300,000 notices were distributed. The ITRC noted that the significant decrease in victim notices was likely due to the lack of “mega-breaches” in 2025 compared to 2024.  The ITRC also found that the financial services industry was the most breached industry in 2025 followed by health care, professional services, manufacturing, and education.  The ITRC’s president was quoted that they had found “more attacks that are more precise, more automated and more difficult to detect. Consumers can take all of the right steps, businesses can have the best cyber security and still fall victim to criminals.”   These findings are significant for the cyber security insurance field. While mega breaches may be decreasing, the overall number of breaches demonstrates that all businesses should be obtaining proper cyber security insurance, and insurance carriers should be aware that while less notices will go out, more claims will be made that can affect both underwriting and the claims procedures.  Legal Updates for Privacy & Data Security - February 19, 2026, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please contact MeDeSatnick@MDWCG.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2026 Marshall Dennehey, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Florida Second DCA Clarifies the Timing of Negligence Claims Against Insurance Brokers

One of the recurring issues in insurance broker malpractice litigation is determining when a negligence claim against a broker becomes ripe. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal recently addressed that question in Bullington Insurance Group, LLC v. Gordon, 427 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026), reaffirming that a negligence claim against an insurance broker does not accrue while a related coverage dispute with the insurer remains pending. In Bullington, the plaintiff was employed as a driver and was involved in an auto accident. His employer's insurance broker had requested that he be added to the employer's commercial policy, and the insurer confirmed the addition. However, when the policy renewed, the plaintiff was not listed as a driver and was not covered at the time of the accident. Default judgments were entered against the plaintiff and his employer in litigation arising from the accident. The plaintiff then filed suit against the insurer for breach of contract and policy reformation, and separately against the broker for negligence. The broker moved to dismiss the negligence count as premature, arguing the coverage dispute with the insurer had to be resolved first. The trial court denied the motion. The Second District granted certiorari and quashed the order. Applying its 2014 decision in Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc. v. Blackshear, 136 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), the court held that the negligence claim against the broker was entirely dependent on a finding that the accident was not covered under the employer's policy. If coverage were established, the claim against the broker would fail as a matter of course. Because the breach of contract and reformation claims against the insurer remained pending, the negligence count against the broker had not yet accrued. The court further addressed the appropriate remedy, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that abatement was warranted. The court distinguished cases holding that abatement is proper in the bad faith context, where an insured brings both an underlying coverage claim and a bad faith claim against the same insurer. Here, the broker and insurer were separate defendants, and Blackshear squarely held that dismissal without prejudice, not abatement, is the proper remedy for a premature broker negligence claim. This decision reinforces the practical significance of sequencing in insurance-related litigation. Where a plaintiff asserts simultaneous claims against both a carrier and a broker, defense counsel for the broker should promptly move to dismiss the broker negligence count as premature. Failure by the trial court to grant such relief constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies That Insurance Brokers, Producers, and Agents Are Not Exempt from Consumer Fraud Act Liability

On July 15, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an opinion in James G. Lowe, M.D. v. Bernard Audet, wherein the Court addressed many prior conflicting opinions and held that insurance brokers, producers and agents are not exempt from the Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et. seq., under the “learned professional” exception as “semi-professionals” or otherwise.  This opinion reversed a decision from the trial court and Appellate Division where the trial judge determined that insurance brokers, producers, and agents are exempt.  The Supreme Court further indicates in a footnote “to the extent there is any distinction between insurance brokers, insurance producers, and insurance agents, none of those occupations are exempt from the CFA under any exception.” Plaintiff was a neurosurgeon who co-owned the medical practice he worked at, as well as several other unrelated businesses.  The defendants were insurance brokers and producers who marketed, sold, produced and procured policies to and for Plaintiff and his medical practice for thirteen years.  Such policies included loss related to disability.  The defendants failed to advise plaintiff that business interests that were not related to his medical practice may have an effect on any benefits claims.  However, plaintiff alleges he was advised by the defendants that, should he become disabled, he would receive maximum benefits under the policies. In 2021, plaintiff was diagnosed with a permanent vision condition that prevented him from performing neurosurgery.  When the claim was made for maximum benefits under the policies plaintiff purchased from the defendants, only partial benefits were paid due to the other business interests plaintiff was involved in that were unrelated to his medical practice.  Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, which included a claim for violation of the CFA by negligently failing to obtain sufficient disability insurance for the plaintiff.  At the trial court level, the judge relied upon Plemmons v. Blue Chip Ins. Serv., Inc., 387 N.J. Super. 551 (App. Div. 2006) (holding that insurance brokers are “semi-professionals,” and are “excluded from liability under the CFA for the services they render within the scope of their professional licenses”), but acknowledged the competing appellate decision of Shaw v Shand, 460 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div. 2019) (holding that the “learned professional” exemption is limited to “those professionals who have historically been recognized as ‘learned’ based on the requirement of extensive learning or erudition”).   The Supreme Court went through the history of opinions which addressed and set the standards for which the CFA applies and where there are exceptions for both “learned professionals” and “semi-professionals.”  Ultimately, the Court ruled that insurance brokers do not fall under either the learned professional or semi-professional exception, and that semi-professionals like insurance brokers, producers and agents are not exempt from the CFA. 

Thought Leadership

Insurance Broker Best Practices to Reduce AI-Related E&O Risk

Insurance agencies and brokerages, like most businesses, are increasingly using artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and Gemini, in their daily operations. AI can provide significant advantages, including greater efficiency, enhanced productivity, and cost savings. For example, brokers may use AI to generate policy comparisons and proposals, accelerating the quoting process. However, these benefits come with risks. AI-generated information may be inaccurate, leading to improper advice, coverage misrepresentations, or binding coverage that violates underwriting guidelines. Overreliance on AI may also increase exposure to errors and omissions (E&O) claims and litigation. Insurance agencies can reduce AI-related risks by following these five best practices: 1. Require Licensed Producer Oversight AI can improve efficiency, but it does not replace the professional judgment or responsibility of a licensed producer. Treat AI-generated content as a preliminary draft that may contain errors. Before any quote, proposal, coverage summary, or policy comparison is provided to a client, a qualified individual should independently verify all material information, including coverage terms, limits, deductibles, exclusions and endorsements, against the applicable policy forms and source documents. 2. Establish a Formal AI Policy Agencies should adopt a written AI policy that defines: Approved AI tools; Information that may or may not be entered into AI platforms; AI outputs requiring licensed producer review; Tasks AI may assist with or perform autonomously, if any; and Permitted and prohibited uses. Approved uses may include document summarization and administrative support. Prohibited uses should include independently binding coverage, modifying limits, providing coverage advice, or communicating coverage determinations without human review. The policy should be distributed to all employees, supported by training, and reinforced through written acknowledgment of compliance. 3. Manage Third-Party AI and Data Security Risks Confidential client information, such as loss runs, financial records, proprietary information, or other sensitive data, should not be entered into unapproved public AI platforms. Agencies should also review contracts with AI vendors to ensure they adequately address confidentiality, cybersecurity controls, data retention, indemnification, insurance requirements, and limitations of liability. 4. Document AI Usage As with other client communications and insurance placement decisions, agencies should maintain records of AI-related activity. Documentation should reflect the client’s requests, information available to the producer, AI-generated output, any modifications or verification performed by agency personnel, communications with the client, and the coverage ultimately procured. Such records may provide valuable evidence in defending a future E&O claim. 5. Review Insurance Coverage Agencies should review their own E&O policies to determine whether any exclusions, limitations, or endorsements affect coverage for AI-related activities.  Likewise, agencies should be aware of any AI-related coverage restrictions contained in policies they recommend or place for clients. Conclusion AI is a valuable tool that can help insurance agents and brokers improve efficiency and service. However, it should supplement rather than replace the oversight, expertise, and professional judgment of a licensed producer. This article was originally published on PLUS Blog, the blog of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society, on August 20, 2026. All rights reserved. Further duplication without prior permission is prohibited. 

News

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/. OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants