.

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

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

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.

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 Atty. William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Attys. Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict.