.

Disciplinary Board Representation

Representing attorneys and professionals in disciplinary actions is a unique area of litigation and requires understanding of disciplinary boards and how they function.  

While everyone likes surprises, not all surprises are well-liked, and this is especially true if you receive notification from a state disciplinary board that your actions have been reported as violating the code of conduct governing your profession. Should you receive notification from a disciplinary board, court or agency that you are being reported or investigated for potential violations of the code of conduct governing your profession, turn to Marshall Dennehey.

Our attorneys are well-versed in the procedures and process of defending attorneys and professionals from allegations of ethics violations, and understand the delicate balance between vigorously contesting discipline and accepting responsibility for errors that is required in this area of practice.   

We defend and advise all manner of licensed professionals facing potential professional discipline before the disciplinary boards, courts and/or agencies in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Florida.

In addition to lawyers and judges, we represent accountants, realtors, property managers, medical professionals, and more. As a trusted leader in this area of law, clients can rely on the depth of our experience defending these matters, combined with our physical office presence in each of the above jurisdictions.

Our ability to collaborate on legal strategy and coordinate defense efforts between our respective offices allows our clients to realize significant cost-savings. We facilitate timely outcomes in disciplinary matters so that our clients can continue their professional activities with minimal interruption. Our goal is to effectively advocate for clients throughout the disciplinary process, while also being cognizant of the client's cost and time expenditures.

We welcome the opportunity to work with you in addressing any disciplinary matters that you may be faced with, and will strive to ensure that your options are understood and your interests are protected.

Results

View all

Unanimous Decision Received from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

We received a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This decision both limits the use of offensive collateral estoppel in disciplinary matters and establishes that the standard of proof for disciplinary matters in Pennsylvania is clear and convincing evidence. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel had sought to utilize non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude the respondent from disputing fact determinations by a bankruptcy judge when she sanctioned the respondent and his client. The Supreme Court determined that the burden of proof for the judge in issuing sanctions was something less than clear and convincing evidence and, therefore, collateral estoppel did not apply. In making its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the previously expressed standard of “preponderance of clear and satisfactory evidence” was confusing and archaic but is the functional equivalent of “clear and convincing.” 

Successful Representation of Attorney in Disciplinary Board Matter

We achieved an informal admonition, the lowest form of discipline which is non-public, for a lawyer client in a matter that involved alleged failures to appropriately represent clients and timely file appeals in six different criminal matters.

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability - 2023 to Present

December 31, 2025

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability, September 2025 Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability, July 2025 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, April 2025 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, February 2025 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, November 2024 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, September 2024 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, July 2024 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, May 2024 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, February 2024 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, November 2023 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, September 2023 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, August 2023 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, May 2023 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, April 2023 Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability, January 2023

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – RESULTS*

September 1, 2025

Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) obtained a defense jury verdict in a legal malpractice matter in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff had retained an attorney to represent her in a personal injury matter. At the plaintiff’s instruction, the attorney settled the personal injury matter pre-suit, after which the plaintiff complained that the attorney should have waited for additional medical records and/or filed suit before advising her to settle her claims. After a one-week trial, the jury returned with a verdict in favor of the defense, finding that the attorney defendant had not committed legal malpractice in the form of negligence or breached the attorney’s contract for legal services with the plaintiff.  John ‘Jack’ Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) and Thomas Specht (Scranton, PA) successfully defended an appeal in the Third Circuit Court. This appeal arose out of an order for summary judgment we obtained in the District Court which dismissed a teacher’s complaint against the school district and the school district’s counsel arising out of tenure charges, which had been affirmed by the New Jersey Superior Court.  Jack was also successful on behalf of a well-known estate practitioner before the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board. The Board found no clear and convincing evidence of unethical conduct and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.  Kimberly House and Oswald Clark (both of Philadelphia, PA) successfully defended the plaintiffs’ appeal from a verdict obtained by Aaron Moore and Alesia Sulock (both of Philadelphia) for our client in a legal malpractice claim. During the case, the trial court partially granted our motion for judgment on the pleadings, which dismissed several tort claims and a claim for unfair trade practices. The matter then proceeded to trial on the remaining breach of contract claim. The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the rulings on the motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion in limine that purportedly precluded the plaintiffs from introducing certain evidence. The Superior Court affirmed in a unanimous decision, holding that the plaintiffs’ tort claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs’ argument regarding the trial court’s decision on the motion in limine was waived because they failed to properly develop the argument in their appellate brief.  Matthew Flanagan (New York, NY) succeeded in obtaining a pre-answer dismissal of malpractice claims against a Brooklyn attorney who allegedly failed to advise his former client of the exposure he faced in a fraud lawsuit. The former client claimed that he understood the risk of losing at trial, but his attorney failed to advise him that he would be liable for pre-verdict interest, which amounted to over $389,000. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged the attorney failed to seek a set off based on a co-defendant’s settlement. We argued that documentary evidence, including emails the plaintiff denied receiving, established his awareness of the potential exposure. We also argued that the plaintiff would need to pay the amount of the judgment, less the set off which he would have received, before he claimed to have been damaged by the failure to seek the set off. The court agreed with both arguments and dismissed the complaint against our client.  Michael Jacobson (New York, NY) successfully secured the dismissal of fraud, RICO, and civil conspiracy claims against a New Jersey attorney and law firm sued in New York. In a pre-answer motion to dismiss, Michael effectively argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over our clients because they lacked sufficient contacts with New York under New York’s general jurisdiction and long arm jurisdiction statutes. The court agreed and dismissed the claims against our clients.  Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) secured dismissal of a surcharge complaint filed in Orphans’ Court against an attorney for the administrator of the estate. The surcharge complaint was filed by a beneficiary of the estate under a third-party beneficiary theory. The beneficiary alleged the attorney for the administrator was negligent in his representation of the administrator in his capacity as fiduciary to the estate. The Orphans’ Court granted our preliminary objections and dismissed the surcharge complaint against the attorney on the basis that the Orphans Court did not have statutory authority over the attorney for the fiduciary in order to impose a surcharge for alleged loss to an estate. The court also found that the beneficiary could not plead facts to establish a third-party beneficiary claim under Guy v. Liederbach. Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) tried an arbitration before a three-member panel of the Fee Arbitration Committee. The allegations in response to the failure to pay the legal fees owed involved allegations of ethical violations in the handling of a highly-contested matrimonial matter. A large portion of the representation involved responding to the allegations of RPC violations and failure to communicate with the client regarding the litigation status and marital support. This matter was originally tried, and the Disciplinary Review Board remanded and referred this matter to the Office of Attorney Ethics to investigate the allegations of RPC violations. The hearing on remand addressed the proprietary of the fee and ruled in favor of our client for 100% of the fee. *Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome    Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – September 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Special Counsel David Farkouh and Michele P. Rannie to New York City Office

News

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Special Counsel David Farkouh and Michele P. Rannie to New York City Office

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. 

MD Selected a 2027 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by Best Lawyers

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a 2027 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by Best Lawyers®

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

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.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

News

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

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.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

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.