.

Barbora is an associate in the firm’s Professional Liability Department, where she concentrates her practice on complex civil litigation in Florida state courts. She primarily defends clients in construction defect, professional liability, and condominium and homeowners’ association matters, representing developers, contractors, design professionals, insurers, and condominium associations. Barbora is involved in all stages of litigation, from pleadings and discovery through motion practice, mediation, and trial preparation.

Barbora earned her juris doctor from the University of Florida Levin College of Law in 2023, where she developed a strong foundation in trial advocacy and leadership. She served as President of the Florida Trial Team, her primary passion during law school, and was inducted into the Order of the Barristers in recognition of excellence in courtroom advocacy. She also received a CALI Excellence for the Future Award in Trial Practice.

In addition to her trial work, Barbora held several leadership roles at UF Law, including President of Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, President of External Affairs for the Pro Bono Service Initiative, and Levin Ambassador throughout her law school tenure. She remains actively involved with the Florida Trial Team as a coach and mentor, working with current members on trial strategy, advocacy skills, and competition preparation. Prior to joining the firm as an associate, she worked with Marshall Dennehey as a summer associate, gaining hands-on experience in professional liability and casualty-related litigation.

Barbora is also an avid sports fan and closely follows the Tampa Bay Lightning, Orlando Magic, and Czech national sports teams.

    • University of Florida Levin College of Law (J.D., 2023)
    • University of South Florida (B.S., 2018)
    • Florida, 2025
    • Coach/Mentor for Florida Trial Team at Levin College of Law

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.