.

About Our Firm

About Our Firm

A relentless defense. A respected reputation. A record of results.

Marshall Dennehey is one of the nation’s largest civil defense litigation firms, with 500 attorneys across 19 offices in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Florida, New York and Connecticut. Since 1962, we’ve partnered with insurers, self-insured businesses, municipalities, and professionals to deliver strategic, cost-conscious legal representation that protects what matters most.

Our focus is simple: understand your risks, manage your litigation, and work relentlessly toward a successful resolution. Whether we’re defending a routine matter or a multimillion dollar, high-stakes claim, we stay aligned with your goals and committed to delivering results.

How we work

Our attorneys are trial-tested and courtroom-ready, but equally skilled at helping clients avoid litigation altogether. As an Am Law 200 firm, Marshall Dennehey is home to some of the nation’s most respected litigators—each backed by dedicated associates, paralegals, and support teams working together to drive efficiency and performance.

We know that litigation is more than a legal problem—it’s a business issue. That’s why our approach emphasizes early case assessment, budget predictability, and close collaboration. We tailor resolution strategies to your risk tolerance, and our internal systems—from e-billing and time tracking to electronic file audits—are built to control costs without compromising quality. We also develop custom litigation management programs when warranted, aligning legal strategy with your financial objectives.

We’ve organized our work into four major departments—Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care, and Workers’ Compensation—supported by nearly 50 specialized practice groups. From catastrophic claims and product liability to medical malpractice and employment law, we offer deep experience in virtually every facet of civil litigation.

A long-term commitment to our people -- and yours

We believe that an informed client is an empowered one. Our clients receive timely legal updates, breaking case law alerts, and in-house seminars that help claims staff stay ahead of legal and regulatory changes.

At Marshall Dennehey, we invest in our people for the long term. Many of our attorneys spend their entire careers here, and we prioritize ongoing training, mentoring, and development. That translates into consistency, institutional knowledge, and lasting relationships.

Key Facts About Marshall Dennehey

  • Leading Am Law 200 firm

  • Founded in 1962 in Philadelphia

  • Focused on civil litigation

  • 500+ attorneys in 19 offices in 7 states

  • Four main practice departments: Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care, Workers' Compensation

  • 40+ distinct practice groups

Accolades
Ranked in Chambers USA

Marshall Dennehey is proud to be recognized in Chambers USA for its Pennsylvania appellate and product liability practices.

Ranked in Chambers USA
Best Law Firms

Marshall Dennehey has been named a "2026 Best Law Firm" in multiple practice areas, both nationally and across numerous regions of the country, by Best Lawyers®.

Best Law Firms
Best Places to Work Recognition

We are proud to be selected among the Philadelphia region's Best Places to Work for 14 consecutive years.

Best Places to Work Recognition
Legal 500 Recognition

The Legal 500 has recognized our firm for excellence in litigating commercial disputes.

Badge saying Legal500 Philadelphia Elite for Commercial Disputes 2026

Voices of Marshall Dennehey

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.