.

Emily is a member of the Professional Liability Department. She represents public entities and officials in civil rights and employment matters, professionals, as well as insurance brokers and agents.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Emily practiced civil litigation at a well-respected Pittsburgh defense firm, where she represented clients in matters involving transportation law, insurance coverage and related issues, product liability, and premises liability. Prior to that, she worked at a consumer protection class action law firm, representing consumers in cases involving deceptive and misleading greenwashing and product safety claims.

Before pursuing a legal career, Emily worked as a fisheries economist in Honolulu which sparked an interest in the legal and regulatory issues affecting environmental policy. While attending the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Emily participated in the Environmental Law Clinic, served as Senior Topics Editor for the Law Review, served as Vice-President of the Pitt Law Women’s Association, and was the Business Manager for the Prisoners’ Legal Support Project. Although she initially planned to focus on environmental law, her experiences in law school and early practice led her to civil litigation, where she enjoys the fast-paced nature of litigation, the strategic aspects of advocacy, and working closely with clients to achieve favorable outcomes. Her background in economics continues to inform her legal practice by providing a strong analytical foundation for evaluating complex issues and developing practical solutions.

Outside of work, Emily enjoys spending time with her partner, friends, family, and cat, Grand-paw. She also enjoys tending her garden, cooking, playing the ukulele, and partner dancing, particularly salsa, blues, and swing.

Emily is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. 

    • University of Pittsburgh School of Law (J.D., 2022)
    • University of Guelph (M.Sc., 2015)
    • University of Nevada, Reno (B.S.B.A., 2010)
    • Pennsylvania, 2022
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022
    • Massachusetts, 2023
    • French (fluent)
  • Allegheny County Bar Association

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.