.

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

August 20, 2026

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition.

Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions.

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/.


OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR

Harrisburg, PA

Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers

Roseland, NJ

Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
 

OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA

Philadelphia, PA
Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law
James H. Cole, Insurance Law
John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management
John Hare, Appellate Practice
Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants
Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law
Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care
Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants

Pittsburgh, PA
Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants 
John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants  
Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance
Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment
Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants

Scranton, PA
Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance
Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
William J. McPartland, Insurance Law
John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance
Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance

Harrisburg , PA
Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation
Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Allison Krupp, Insurance Law
John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers

King of Prussia, PA 
Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law
Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction
Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers

Erie, PA
Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law

New Haven, CT
Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy 

Mount Laurel, NJ
David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance
Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care
John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants

Roseland, NJ
Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice
Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction
Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law

New York, NY
Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants

Tampa, FL
Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction

Orlando, FL
Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation

Fort Lauderdale, FL
Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice
Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Jacksonville, FL 
Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction
James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Wilmington, DE
Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance
Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants 
Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers

Cincinnati, OH
Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

Cleveland, OH
Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law
Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care
Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law
Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant

OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH

Jacksonville, FL
Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants

Orlando, FL
Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law

Mount Laurel
Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law

Melville, NY
Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

Philadelphia, PA
Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law
Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Pittsburgh, PA
Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law

King of Prussia, PA
Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group