.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability - RESULTS & THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

January 3, 2022

LAWYERS’ PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY RESULTS*

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ), obtained a precedent setting decision in Johnson v. McClellan, A-2683-19 (App. Div. July 19, 2021), certif. denied 2021 WL 5446825, where the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s ruling which held that a law professor, an attorney admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, was liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages in connection with the alleged unauthorized practice of law and obtaining a referral fee. The trial court entered judgment against the professor, ordering a disgorgement of the referral fee, treble damages and attorneys’ fees under New Jersey’s Criminal Statute N.J.S.A. 2C:21-22(a). The trial court ruled that the professor, by accepting a referral fee and by consulting on an underlying medical malpractice case which was filed in New Jersey, had committed the unauthorized practice of law because the professor was not admitted to practice in New Jersey. 

On appeal, the Appellate Division held that the trial court erred in finding that the professor violated New Jersey’s Criminal Statute. In addition, the Appellate Division agreed with the professor’s argument that he did not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court held that an attorney admitted to practice before the highest court of another state may engage in the lawful practice of law in New Jersey if the out-of-state lawyer’s practice in New Jersey is occasional and the lawyer associates himself with a lawyer admitted in New Jersey who will be responsible for the conduct of the out-of-state lawyer in the matter. 

The Appellate Division also ruled that the trial court erred in determining that the receipt of a fee would amount to an independent instance of unauthorized practice of law. The Appellate Division found that such a finding would have rendered every attorney who violates an RPC relating to the unauthorized practice of law open to criminal prosecution. Commentators have written that this case could spare other attorneys from criminal prosecution. 

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a petition for certification before the New Jersey Supreme Court, which Jack and Jeremy successfully opposed. The Supreme Court, in its decision, denied the plaintiff’s petition, with costs in favor of the Professor, on November 19, 2021. 

On December 9, 2021, the New Jersey Law Journal recognized this case as one of the top three legal victories in 2021. See Toutant, Charles, “Law’s Winners and Losers of 2021: Some Saw Breakthroughs, While Others Hit Rock Bottom,” NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL, December 9, 2021. 

Also handled by Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias, in 2820 Mt. Ephraim Avenue v. Dembo Brown & Burns, LLP, 2021 WL 2934611, certif. denied, 2021 WL 5879486 (December 10, 2021), the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a trial court decision granting summary judgment in a $10 million tortious interference and defamation case filed by borrowers against the attorneys for a lender bank. This case arose out of an underlying deficiency and foreclosure action filed by a bank due to the plaintiff’s failure to repay a multi-million dollar loan used to finance the purchase of real estate. 

During the course of negotiations to resolve the debt, the bank’s counsel had discussions with the plaintiff’s new lender. The plaintiff alleged that during these discussions, the bank’s attorney called the plaintiff a “wannabe gangster.”

On appeal, Jack and Jeremy successfully argued that the trial court was correct in dismissing this case on summary judgment. The Appellate Division held that the trial judge correctly concluded that a statement made by the bank’s attorney to a potential new lender calling the plaintiff a “wannabe gangster” was mere name calling, not actionable defamation. Counsel for the bank’s attorney argued on appeal that this pejorative was simply name calling and did not rise to the level of actionable defamation or slander. The claims for tortious interference were based upon the lost opportunity since the new lender rescinded its conditional commitment after the alleged statement was made. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court was correct in holding that the statement was protected under the litigation privilege. The Appellate Division held that the litigation privilege is not confined to the courtroom, but extends to all statements or communications in connection with judicial proceedings. 

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a petition for certification before the New Jersey Supreme Court, which Jack and Jeremy successfully opposed. The Supreme Court, in its decision, denied the plaintiff’s petition, with costs in favor of our client, on December 7, 2021.

Howard Mankoff (Roseland, NJ) represented an attorney who was sued by a former client, whom the attorney represented in a personal injury claim. The plaintiff alleged that the attorney failed to file suit within the time allowed by the statute of limitations. We argued in our summary judgment motion that the attorney sent two letters to the plaintiff, advising that the attorney would not file suit and further informing the plaintiff when the statute of limitations would expire. The plaintiff, who filed suit four years later, argued that he did not receive the letters and the attorney was obligated to do more than send letters. We successfully argued that the plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption that a letter, correctly addressed, was received. The Appellate Division affirmed, adopting our argument that the plaintiff could not overcome the presumption by simply claiming he did not receive the letters. The appeal was handled by Walter Kawalec (Mount Laurel, NJ). 

Aaron Moore (Philadelphia, PA) handled a complaint filed with the Pennsylvania Lawyers’ Fund for Client Security against our client attorney, which was successfully dismissed as unsupported. In a second case handled by Aaron, a surcharge claim was filed against our client attorney in the Philadelphia Orphans’ court, which was dismissed as unsupported.

Edwin Schwartz (Harrisburg, PA) successfully settled a $1.5 million liability claim for $450,000 by effectively challenging the damage model as speculative with plaintiffs’ counsel and the mediator. In a second matter, Ed convinced opposing counsel to drop his efforts in pursuing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against our client in an underlying criminal matter. Ed also received a favorable Report and Recommendation from a U.S. Magistrate Judge recommending dismissal with prejudice based on his motion to dismiss. Finally, two of Ed’s cases were dismissed with prejudice based on preliminary objections. 

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome

 

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) published articles in the Legal Intelligencer over the last quarter on lessons to be learned from the Disciplinary Board’s disbarments in 2021 and considerations in purchasing legal malpractice insurance. He also published an article for the PLUS Blog on the issues surrounding employing a formerly admitted attorney. In addition to authoring articles, Josh has presented on professional liability issues surrounding cyber-attacks at the Lackawanna Bench Bar Conference as well as to the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Edwin Schwartz (Harrisburg, PA) presented the program “Avoiding Legal Malpractice” to the Dauphin County Bar Association on December 15th.

Charlene Seibert (Pittsburgh, PA) presented “Role as a Risk Manager in Avoiding Legal Malpractice Centre” to the County Bar Association’s Bench Bar.

 

The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

Firm Highlights

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Result

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

News

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

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.

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. 

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

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

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.

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.