.

Analytics & Outcomes

Marshall Dennehey provides cost-effective, intelligent and pragmatic representation. We never lose sight of our client's goals and strive to exceed expectations, from the earliest stages of a lawsuit to its conclusion. We empower our clients to make informed decisions about their exposure, and collaborate with them to develop a resolution strategy that is mindful of their bottom line.

We know the metrics our clients use to measure success and we use those same metrics to guide our performance. We staff matters efficiently; adhere to client guidelines at every step; and tap into the collective wisdom of our 500+ attorneys to get the best possible outcomes for our clients.

Case Closed

When it comes to assignments, we monitor and measure progress in terms of cases closed.

Median Legal Fees

In order to equip clients with reliable forecasting, we capture, analyze and aggregate fees and costs per closed file on the many different types of litigation we handle.

Cycle Time/File Tempo

Effective litigation management requires steady, deliberate speed. We carefully monitor the pace of file handling and track cycle times to enhance and foster efficiencies.

Budget Accuracy

We track actual fees and costs against budget forecasts in order to improve accuracy, provide clients realistic financial expectations and make timely adjustments whenever value changing events occur.

Guideline Compliance

We have developed a sophisticated, guideline-focused system that enables our professionals to consult client specific, constantly refreshed, case handling protocols at any time. This resource is backed up by our pioneering internal audit program that ensures compliance with these guidelines and consistent file handling across each of our 19 offices.

Dispositions

Successful outcomes come in a variety of forms. We track zero loss cases, settlement/indemnity paid, and verdicts in each of the thousands of cases we defend. Combined with legal fees these metrics enable us to assess total cost of defense and allow stakeholders to measure our performance against program benchmarks.

What Makes Marshall Dennehey Different

When Defense Matters

When Defense Matters

In every sense, Marshall Dennehey is a true defense firm. We don’t “dabble” across multiple disciplines of law nor do we bring lawsuits. Rather, our singular focus is defending clients in civil litigation. Particularly in the high-volume and high-stakes arena of insurance defense litigation, we provide our attorneys and legal support teams with best-in-class technologies and innovative resources, all focused on providing high-quality legal representation to our clients.

Forward Thinking

We partner with you and examine all angles to anticipate issues before they become problems. Complex cases are often brought to roundtable, where the firm’s most experienced litigators weigh in on defense approach and strategy – at no added cost to you.

Years In Business

Marshall Dennehey was founded in 1962 by some of the most iconic Philadelphia trial lawyers of their time. Since then, we have purposefully built upon that legacy. For over six decades, we have successfully weathered changes in the insurance industry, never losing sight of our clients' needs in the constantly changing market for legal services.

Non-Origination = Collaborative Culture

Non-Origination = Collaborative Culture

Our unique compensation structure encourages attorneys to cooperate with each other, rather than compete with each other. That’s because we have no attorney origination fees. We’ve never had them, and we never will. This creates a culture of collaboration that we believe is truly unique to our law firm and enables us to match the right attorney, on the right case, in the right office. It also allows for flexibility when clients request specific attorneys to handle their case.

Geographic Footprint

Our 19 offices are strategically located throughout seven states where we represent clients on a daily basis in the local and federal courts and before all types of dispute resolution panels. We are familiar with the judges, opposing counsel and population of potential jurors who will be involved with the outcome of your case, providing you with the ultimate home-court advantage.

Value For Our Clients

Value For Our Clients

Predictable legal spend is critical to our clients’ budgets and planning. For many practice areas and legal services, we offer commonality in pricing across the firm. We also create mutually-beneficial, value-based billing or alternative fee arrangements for larger clients. Analysis of the ratio between Marshall Dennehey attorney fees vs. indemnity costs per file is another indicator of the financial efficiency we bring to your matters. Our internal auditing program, led by former claims managers and senior attorneys, promises quality assurance in file management and compliance with your guidelines.

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.