.

Andra Paganie

Portrait of Andra Paganie

Andra is a skilled litigator with broad experience in complex commercial litigation, product liability, class action defense, and insurance and personal injury matters. A member of the firm’s Casualty Department, she brings a strategic, detail-oriented approach to defending corporate and individual clients across a wide range of disputes. She is licensed to practice in all state courts in New York and Pennsylvania, as well as the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Before joining Marshall Dennehey, Andra practiced in the New York offices of three international law firms, where she represented global and domestic corporations in high-stakes litigation. Her work focused on the defense of product manufacturers in class actions and individual claims involving design defects, failure to warn, fraud, and misrepresentation. She has successfully obtained dismissals, summary judgment rulings, and the exclusion of expert testimony in complex product liability cases. Her experience also includes arbitration and appellate work.

Andra earned her J.D., cum laude, from Brooklyn Law School, where she was named a Prince Scholar, Dean’s Merit Scholar, and Centennial Grant Scholar. She served as Articles Editor for the Brooklyn Law Review and competed in both the Trial and Appellate Divisions of the Moot Court Honor Society.  She gained valuable judicial experience as a student law clerk to the Honorable Dora Irizarry (E.D.N.Y.) and the Honorable John Keenan (S.D.N.Y.), and prosecutorial experience through internships with the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Andra holds a B.A. in English Language & Literature, with distinction, from Yale University.

She lives in Erie with her husband and two children. Fluent in Romanian, Andra enjoys traveling with her family, skiing, playing tennis, watching movies, and solving puzzles.

    • Brooklyn Law School (J.D., cum laude)
    • Yale University (B.A., with distinction)
    • Pennsylvania, 2019
    • New York, 2010
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 2010
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 2010
    • Romanian (fluent)

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.