.

Eric is an associate in the firm’s Casualty Department, where he focuses his practice on general liability matters, defending premises liability and personal injury claims, including workplace and construction accidents, products liability, and motor vehicle accidents. He represents insurers and insured entities from initial investigation through resolution, developing focused defense strategies, evaluating liability and exposure, and consistently driving efficient, favorable outcomes. 

Eric earned his J.D. from Rutgers Law School in Camden, New Jersey, where he received the Dean’s Merit Scholarship and the Clarence E. Case Scholarship and routinely achieved Dean’s List honors. During law school, he interned with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, reviewing and analyzing employment discrimination matters brought under the Law Against Discrimination and drafting memorandum opinions. He also served as a law clerk for a respected criminal defense attorney, researching and drafting appellate briefs and pre‑trial motions in a variety of criminal cases.

Before attending law school, Eric earned two Bachelor of Science degrees, both cum laude, from Rutgers University in New Brunswick, majoring in psychology and sociology. As an undergraduate, he interned with the American Conference on Diversity, where he supported outreach initiatives, organized fundraising events, and identified high schools in need of education and empowerment programming. He was also a member of the National Society of Leadership & Success and the National Society of Collegiate Scholars.

Outside of his practice, Eric enjoys running, spending time with his family, playing guitar, and attending Philadelphia sports events.

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 2022)
    • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (B.S., 2016)
      • in Psychology and Sociology
    • New Jersey, 2022
    • Pennsylvania, 2023
    • New York, 2024
    • New Jersey Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • New York State Bar Association
  • Successfully obtained dismissal of all claims against their client in a personal injury action arising from a December 22, 2021 workplace accident. The plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries while unloading pharmaceutical products from a tractor trailer. Although the lawsuit was timely filed against other defendants, plaintiffs' counsel did not name our client as a defendant until filing a Fourth Amended Complaint—more than two years after the applicable statute of limitations had expired. The court agreed that the plaintiff failed to exercise the due diligence required under New Jersey Rule 4:26-4 to identify the client as a defendant before the limitations period expired and granted the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e).

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.