.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Names Marshall Dennehey External Law Firm Partner of the Year

October 24, 2025

Liberty Mutual Insurance Names Marshall Dennehey External Law Firm Partner of the Year

Marshall Dennehey is honored to accept the External Law Firm Partner of the Year Award from Liberty Mutual Insurance. The award is bestowed upon law firms Liberty Mutual considers to have consistently delivered pragmatic legal solutions in defending and advancing the interests of their customers, policy holders and the company itself. 

According to Liberty Mutual, “Marshall Dennehey distinguished itself from its peers by focusing on quality and service, achieving exceptional outcomes in a cost-effective and innovative manner, and fostering inclusion.”   

“We are very grateful,” said Marshall Dennehey’s President and CEO, G. Mark Thompson. “Our two organizations have been doing business together for over 40 years making Liberty Mutual one of Marshall Dennehey’s oldest and most important relationships. Together we have resolved thousands of cases and we’re proud to have done so with a shared commitment to diversity and inclusion. This award reflects the hard work and dedication of our lawyers and paralegals who align everyday with Liberty Mutual’s commitment to excellence, collaboration and customer service.” 

The award was presented by Damon Hart, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer for Liberty Mutual Insurance during a virtual ceremony on October 23, 2025. Joining Thompson in the awards program were John J. Hare, a member of the firm’s Board of Directors and Chair of the Appellate Advocacy & Post Trial Practice Group, and Butler Buchanan, III, Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney and Chair of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Committee. 

“It is especially rewarding to receive this recognition from a client with whom we have shared more than 40 years of partnership,” said Buchanan. “Liberty Mutual has long valued diverse perspectives and equitable collaboration, and this award is a testament to what can be achieved when those values guide both the client relationship and our approach to the practice of law.”
 

Liberty Award 2025

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.