.

Marshall Dennehey Bolsters Florida Casualty Practice With Addition of Litigation Trio in Orlando

July 25, 2024

A trio of attorneys – two with extensive trial experience in casualty litigation matters – has joined Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando office. Trial attorney Raychel Garcia joins as Shareholder; Brian Catelli as Special Counsel; and Matthew Wykes as Associate. All three previously practiced at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. in Orlando.

“With great pleasure, we welcome Raychel, Brian and Matthew to our Orlando casualty practice,” said Matthew S. Schorr, Director of Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department. “Raychel and Brian bring exceptional trial prowess and litigation skills to the firm, and their reputation for advocacy and client service aligns perfectly with our firm's values. Supported by Matthew, we are confident that all three attorneys will enhance our team’s capabilities and greatly contribute to the continued success and growth of our Florida casualty practice."

Shareholder Raychel Garcia has 13 years of experience in the defense of complex, catastrophic litigation stemming from motor vehicle negligence, premises liability, retail liability, bodily injury, wrongful death, and other general liability claims. Representing clients in the state and federal courts, she has served as first chair in multiple trials on behalf of the world's leading theme park and resort, an arts and crafts retailer, a national convenience store chain, and an upscale hotel franchise. Garcia’s practice also includes high profile sex abuse and negligent security cases, as well as a variety of other matters.   

She is a former assistant attorney with the Orange County State Attorney's Office, where she tried more than 75 criminal jury trials and received the Orange County Sheriff's Office Citizen Award. A graduate of the University of Florida and Stetson University College of Law, she is a member of the Orange County Bar Association, the Seminole County Library Board and the City of Altamonte Springs Zoning Board. 

Special Counsel Brian Catelli has 14 years of courtroom experience, focused largely on general liability cases involving property and personal injury claims, automobile liability, premises liability, nursing home defense matters, negligent security cases, as well as a variety of other matters. Well known in the Orlando legal community, he previously founded his own law practice and was an assistant state attorney with the Orange County Prosecution Office where he gained extensive trial experience. He is a graduate of Walla Walla College in Washington, and Florida A& M University College of Law.

Associate Matthew Wykes was recently admitted to the Florida bar and brings a wealth of experience to his new role. He has nine years of paralegal litigation experience and worked directly with Raychel Garcia as her law clerk for two years. He focuses his practice on personal injury defense, premises liability, motor vehicle accidents, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases. Matthew is a graduate of the University of Central Florida and Florida A&M University College of Law.
 

Litigation Trio 2024

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.