Alesia is a member of the Professional Liability Department where she focuses her practice on the defense of claims made and suits brought against a variety of professionals. She regularly defends attorneys in legal malpractice claims, wrongful use of civil proceedings claims, abuse of process claims and disciplinary matters. Alesia handles a wide variety of real estate matters, including defending real estate agents, appraisers and title agents in litigation and disciplinary matters, and advising corporate clients on real estate and property matters. Additionally, she defends other professionals, including accountants, non-profit organizations and directors and officers, and provides representation in commercial litigation matters.
Alesia regularly presents on risk management and legal malpractice avoidance topics for attorneys throughout Pennsylvania. She publishes extensively in this area as well, including co-authoring a recurring column in The Legal Intelligencer on professional liability themes. She is an active member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Professional Liability Committee and Ethics Committee. She also serves on the Board of Directors for the Professional Liability Defense Federation.
In 2012, Alesia earned her juris doctor from the Villanova University School of Law where she graduated cum laude. While in law school, she was on the executive board of the Villanova Law Moot Court Board and ran the annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition. Prior to attending law school, Alesia worked as a corporate underwriter for a mortgage company in Philadelphia, PA.
Alesia attended St. Joseph's University as an undergraduate, and she graduated magna cum laude in 2006. She received several academic honors including the Presidential Scholarship and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society.
Results
Unanimous Appellate Decision Preserves Defense Win in Legal Malpractice Suit
We successfully defended an appeal from a jury verdict previously secured by members of our Lawyers’ Professional Liability Department in favor of the firm’s client in a legal malpractice case. The plaintiffs initially asserted multiple tort claims and a claim under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, which were dismissed by the trial court upon partial grant of the defense’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case proceeded to trial on a remaining breach of contract claim, resulting in a defense verdict. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s rulings on both the motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion in limine related to evidentiary exclusions. The Pennsylvania Superior Court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s rulings, holding that the tort claims were time-barred and that the plaintiffs had waived their evidentiary argument by failing to properly develop it in their appellate brief.
Defense Verdict Secured in Legal Malpractice Case
We won a defense verdict in a legal malpractice case arising from an underlying civil rights claim. The plaintiff was arrested in August 2015 following a physical altercation with her daughter and her daughter’s friends. The plaintiff alleged that, while she was being searched at the Philadelphia Police Detention Unit, a City employee struck her, causing her to fall into a “split” and suffer a hamstring avulsion. The defendant attorneys represented the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the City. The plaintiff was never able, during the underlying case, to identify the employee who allegedly assaulted her. She did not respond to communications from the defendant attorneys regarding the arbitration award and the appellate deadline; thus, no appeal was filed. During the legal malpractice trial, we presented evidence that the plaintiff could not have won the underlying case-within-the-case because she lacked corroborating evidence of the alleged assault. We also presented evidence that the plaintiff could not prove damages arising from the alleged injury. The court agreed and entered a defense verdict following a bench trial.
Thought Leadership
The Legal Intelligencer
Ethical Remote Practice of Law in a Post-Pandemic World
September 16, 2026
Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Takes Up the Gist of the Action Doctrine
July 29, 2026
The gist of the action doctrine has been a hot topic in legal malpractice cases in Pennsylvania over the last several years. Beginning in 2014, the Pennsylvania courts applied the gist of the action doctrine to professional liability actions, following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion in Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014). In Bruno, the court applied the gist of the action doctrine to a professional negligence claim, and found that a negligence claim was not barred simply because the parties were in a contractual relationship where the gist of the claim sounded in negligence. Thereafter, courts in Pennsylvania applied the gist of the action doctrine to breach of contract claims as well, finding that where the allegations sounded in negligence, a plaintiff could not recast a negligence claim as one for breach of contract. This was important because of the distinction between statutes of limitations: negligence claims must be brought within two (2) years, while breach of contract claims can be brought within four (4) years. Then, last year, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the gist of the action doctrine does not apply to breach of contract claims as seen through two opinions. These opinions were Swatt v. Nottingham Village, 342 A.3d 23 (Pa. Super. 2025) and Poteat v. Asteak, et al., 350 A.3d 198 (Pa. Super. 2025). That is, the gist of the action doctrine can bar a negligence claim but it cannot bar a breach of contract claim. This month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the petition for allowance of appeal in Poteat. The Supreme Court phrased the issue for consideration as follows: Whether the Superior Court majority’s holding conflicts with this Court’s holding in Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co., 160 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014), as well as Superior Court opinions that applied Bruno, and departs from almost 200 years of controlling precedent that distinguishes between causes of action in contract and tort based upon the nature of the duty that was allegedly breached? Attorneys on both sides of legal malpractice matters no doubt look forward to clarification on these issues from our Supreme Court.
