.

Paralegals

Paralegals play a critical role in supporting trial teams and managing the demands of complex litigation. We value professionals who bring strong organizational skills, attention to detail, and a collaborative mindset to fast‑moving matters. In return, we offer challenging work, respect for expertise, and opportunities for continued development and advancement.

Portrait of Lisa M Ricchezza

“Our paralegals are valued professionals whose experience and judgment make a real difference every day. We foster a supportive, collaborative environment where talented paralegals can grow, contribute, and feel proud of the work they do.”

Lisa Ricchezza

Director of Paralegal Services

FAQs

  • What types of paralegal positions does Marshall Dennehey offer?

    Marshall Dennehey’s paralegals play an essential role across all four of the firm’s core practices: Casualty, Health Care, Professional Liability, and Workers’ Compensation.  Our paralegals support sophisticated insurance defense litigation and work closely with attorneys at every stage of the case, contributing meaningfully to strategy, efficiency, and client service.
     

  • Do I need a paralegal certificate or license?

    While a paralegal certificate or credential from an ABA approved program is preferred, there is no licensing requirement for paralegals at Marshall Dennehey.  We value a combination of education, practical experience, and a demonstrated commitment to excellence in litigation support.
     

  • Does Marshall Dennehey provide paralegal training?

    Yes. Marshall Dennehey is committed to the professional development of its paralegals from day one. New hires participate in structured onboarding and orientation training, followed by ongoing education focused on technical skills, evolving legal technology, and industry trends. Paralegals also have access to the firm’s annual Paralegal Conference, a signature event that blends professional development with collaboration. The conference provides opportunities to learn new skills, share best practices, discuss emerging challenges, and engage with peers across the firm—strengthening both individual growth and firmwide excellence.
     

  • Are performance evaluations conducted regularly?

    Yes. All timekeepers, including paralegals, are evaluated annually at the end of the calendar year. These performance reviews promote transparency, provide meaningful feedback, and support ongoing professional development. They also help identify opportunities for advancement and long term career growth within the firm.
     

  • Are flexible schedules or remote/hybrid work options available?

    Marshall Dennehey offers a hybrid work schedule for paralegals that balances collaboration and flexibility. Each week includes in office time alongside the opportunity for remote work, supporting productivity while recognizing the importance of work life balance. Apply today to learn more about how this flexible model works within your desired office or practice.
     

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.