.
Careers

Attorneys

Our attorneys are at the forefront of complex, high‑stakes litigation across numerous jurisdictions and industries. We offer a collaborative environment where exceptional legal talent is supported by deep resources, strategic mentorship, and the opportunity to take on meaningful responsibility. If you are driven by rigorous advocacy and professional growth, we invite you to build your career with us.

Portrait of Jahlee J. Hatchett

"After practicing law in a variety of areas, I had the opportunity to join Marshall Dennehey in 2022. Professionally, the firm has a great reputation, and its four practice areas allow me to get exposure to some of the most interesting and high-profile cases being litigated. Personally, the firm is very supportive of its attorneys and is intentional about developing leaders in the legal community. At Marshall Dennehey, you control your destiny!"

Jahlee Hatchett

Associate

Portrait of Kiara K. Hartwell

"I joined the firm in 2016 and have never looked back. The transition from a small firm to a large one was seamless. Working here, I have access to countless resources and developed many friendships and mentorships among lawyers and staff alike. The firm also does a great job providing opportunities for us to meet department colleagues from different states. I hope to continue growing within the Marshall Dennehey family for years to come."

Kiara Hartwell

Shareholder

Portrait of Jillian L. Dinehart

"Marshall Dennehey has allowed my practice to grow by encouraging me to work with shareholders in a variety of fields so that I can find the practice that best suits my interests. The firm balances its business needs with our mutual interest in my professional growth in the legal community. Marshall Dennehey was the right choice for me because it has provided me with more support and growth opportunities than other AmLaw 200 firms may have in such a competitive market."

Jillian Dinehart

Shareholder

Photo

"Eli is a true team player, whether collaborating with colleagues in the office or representing the firm on the softball field." - Robert Schenk, Esq.

Photo

"Lucy transitioned into handling straight casualty work, where she has secured excellent results for some of the firm’s largest clients." - Steve Christman, Esq.

Photo

"Megan’s initiative and dedication are a prime example of how developing a focused practice area can result in tremendous business development."

Photo

“Jahlee combines exceptional legal skill, unwavering dedication, and community leadership, making him an invaluable colleague and advocate.”

FAQs

  • Does Marshall Dennehey offer mentorship for new associates?

    Mentorship starts on day one as associates are formally mentored by the members of their immediate practice group as well as the managing attorney of their office. We also provide many opportunities for informal mentorship, whether through our “open door” policy, new attorney orientation, regional associate conferences, and office social events. We additionally encourage associates to seek out mentors of their own choosing beyond their practice group – there are many seasoned attorneys here who are eager to offer support and guidance to our younger lawyers.

  • What can you tell me about the firm’s culture?

    We take our collegial and inclusive workplace culture very seriously. As our hiring chair says, “If you don’t play nice in the sandbox, you won’t last long at Marshall Dennehey.” Every person, regardless of title or position, is valued and respected. There is a reason our firm has been named among the Philadelphia region’s Best Places to Work for the past 13 years.

  • If I join Marshall Dennehey as an associate, what is the path to becoming a shareholder?

    The firm has a defined path to shareholdership based on years in practice, experience, and performance. Biannual performance reviews offer opportunities to discuss your progress along this path. Marshall Dennehey is unique in that every shareholder has a stake in the firm; we do not have a non-equity shareholder track, which translates to clarity in advancement, fairness, and career stability. The firm is invested in your success – if you join us as an associate or special counsel, it is our goal that you become a shareholder and enjoy a long career here.

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims

Kimberly and Seth, shareholders in the Insurance Services Practice in our Fort Lauderdale office, break down the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 'Trace Elements v. MacKensen' and what it means for property insurance claims in the state. Read the article here.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight

In a significant decision issued on February 25, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (DCA) ruled in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., 430 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026), that while injured workers have an absolute right to choose their own pharmacy or pharmacist, that right does not extend to physicians who dispense medications directly to their patients.  Read Blake's article in Insurance Journal: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2026/08/05/880229.htm.