.

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Accomplished Litigator Kyle T. McGee to its Professional Liability Department in Pittsburgh

March 31, 2025

Marshall Dennehey announced that veteran professional liability attorney Kyle T. McGee has joined the firm’s Pittsburgh office as a shareholder.

Previously a partner at Margolis Edelstein, McGee focuses his practice on civil rights and public entity litigation, professional liability, employment litigation and general liability/casualty litigation throughout Pennsylvania and West Virginia in state and federal courts. His experience includes defending companies and individuals including police officers, municipal and government officials, public entities, private and public employers, labor suppliers, and various professionals in a wide variety of legal claims.

“We are thrilled to welcome Kyle to our Pittsburgh office. With nearly two decades of litigation experience, he is a highly skilled attorney with an impressive track record of going the extra mile to fiercely advocate for his clients and achieve successful results,” said Craig S. Hudson, Director of Marshall Dennehey’s Professional Liability Department. “Kyle’s practice fits in well with our existing professional liability capabilities, and I’m confident our clients will benefit greatly from his extensive litigation experience and industry acumen.”

In addition to his professional liability practice, McGee has also successfully investigated and litigated general liability matters, including casualty matters, product liability, sexual and physical assault and abuse, and commercial and business litigation. He also serves as general counsel for several property insurance companies where he provides general legal advice and risk management, as well as ensures compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

McGee is a graduate of Bucknell University and President of the Alumni Association Board of Directors. He received his law degree from the Thomas R. Kline School of Law at Duquesne University.

A trained mediator, McGee has served on the Pro Bono Mediator Task Force for the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, PA, and is a member of the Prisoner Pro Bono Counsel Program for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  

kyle mcgee

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.