.

President & CEO

Chairman, Executive Committee

Portrait of G. Mark Thompson

Defense Digest

Message From the Executive Committee

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 4, September 2021

September 1, 2021

by G. Mark Thompson

Have you experienced a greater appreciation lately for the things you used to take for granted? I have. Downing a cup of coffee and leaving the house for work feels better than ever. I’m happy knowing we are all back in the office and spurred by how wonderful that feels. This past year helped me realize how much the people of Marshall Dennehey mean to me and how much better I am around them. I look forward each day to the boost I get from the folks I’m fortunate to work alongside.

Our sense of community, and all its positive energy, is back. Across the firm, hallways are louder as attorneys, paralegals, and support staff linger to talk, laugh and check in on one another. We have gone back to holding doors and sharing elevators. And in our kitchens, baked goods, pizza and all kinds of unhealthy treats have reappeared. It’s marvelous!

There really is an antidote for much of the frustration and fatigue we have come to experience in the past year. Just look up. Look up and take stock of all we have to be grateful for. Do that and you’ll find it impossible to be grateful and discouraged at the same time.

When I look around I smile, thinking of the 17 new attorneys we recently onboarded at Marshall Dennehey. I told them during an in-person orientation that they had chosen an exceptional firm that does exceptional things. I meant and declared it with conviction because I know it to be true. I am both grateful to say that and for the talented lawyers I was able to say it to.

Whether you are a client or an employee of Marshall Dennehey, I want you to feel good about what this firm stands for and know you are part of something special.

You enable us, when others falter, to step forward and lead. And we are grateful. It is because of you we press on, always striving to do the right thing, regardless of circumstance. And it is why, I believe, we are blessed to be an exceptional firm.

Think about this, last year Marshall Dennehey was able to accomplish what 95% of the Am Law 200 could not.

This prestigious group, among which we are proud to be ranked, represent the 200 largest, most successful law firms in the country. The best of the best. And yet last year, when faced with adversity, they flinched.

Ninety-five percent of these firms opted to lay off or cut the pay of their employees. The majority did both.

I am grateful we took a different path.

At Marshall Dennehey, we determined to take care of each other. We committed to keeping our entire 1,200-member family together, safe, fully employed and fully paid. It is a commitment from which we have never wavered. And it’s something we achieved without PPP, stimulus checks or bank loans.

We did it through hard work, shared sacrifice and a healthy dose of providence. Facing an uncertain future, our shareholders put the pursuit of good before the pursuit of profit. Everyone participating in our 401(K) plan gave up their employer match. We deferred employer-paid social security taxes and we saved on expenses. And together we did what our peers did not. We avoided layoffs, pay cuts, and the hardship those measures would have imposed on our employees and their families. We chose character over compromise. We did what was right and emerged grateful and intact from the largest threat to ever confront our 59-year-old firm.

Why do I think we’re exceptional? Why am I grateful to work at Marshall Dennehey? Because putting us ahead of me has always been part of our culture. Instilled by our founders, it’s a guiding principle that provides clarity, calmness and strength. And our resolve to follow that tenet makes all the difference.

Putting us ahead of me explains our distinct pay structure. Marshall Dennehey doesn’t compensate its lawyers based on origination. A recent ALM Intelligence survey found that 83% of law firms still do. This is a tired but pervasive practice in which the lawyer who first touched (or originated) the client receives credit, often in perpetuity, for all subsequent assignments. He or she might then share credit with the lawyer who grows the account and/or the attorney who performs most of the client’s legal work. The lawyers are then paid on the basis of these “originations.”

These systems encourage hoarding. They create incentives and shape behaviors that are me-focused and counter to most clients’ interest. Lawyers end up disregarding venue, subject matter expertise or experience, all in an effort to retain a file and preserve origination credit.

At Marshall Dennehey, we’d rather focus on client-oriented performance. Spurning origination credit allows us to easily assign the right matter to the right lawyer in the right location. Our lawyers are also able to specialize in distinct areas of law such as ride sharing, employment, insurance coverage or appellate advocacy. By contrast, where compensation is based on origination, lawyers tend to juggle multiple disciplines in an effort to keep matters under their own name.

Our unique approach puts our clients’ interest first but also fosters sharing, team work and trust among our lawyers, putting us ahead of me and strengthening the firm.

This past year, as the world staggered from order to disorder, it was putting us ahead of me that galvanized and drove our firm to recalibrate, remain ahead of the curve and continue providing clients superior legal services. I’m still in awe of what our people, working together, were able to accomplish.

The firm’s IT department scaled our remote work capacity almost overnight to serve more than 1,100 employees working from home—including nearly 500 administrative staff who had never before worked remotely. Our finance department got immediately to work bringing innovation, digitization and greater efficiency to invoicing while our lawyers learned to market, litigate and resolve cases virtually, successfully and as never before. In fact, it was Marshall Dennehey attorneys who led the way when first virtual and then socially distanced, in-person civil jury trials resumed.

Here in Philadelphia, putting us ahead of me meant a legal aid clinic, founded and continuously staffed by our firm since 2015, pushed through a pandemic and continued operating virtually with a dedicated team of volunteer attorneys spanning associates to senior management.

Putting us ahead of me accounts for why Marshall Dennehey was one of only a few firms in the country to honor its commitment to law students and run a fully intact, multi-state Summer Associate program last year, something it’s doing again this summer.

Putting us ahead of me explains why we continued to provide opportunity when other firms were laying people off, onboarding 67 new attorneys in the past year and a half.

And when asked what we were doing returning to the office while others sat at home—putting us ahead of me - became our proud reply.

It is something we did with a sense of urgency, balancing risk with obligation to our employees, our clients and our future. Working together, we brought back 20 offices across six different states safely, methodically and without any incidence of outbreak. These offices have now been up and running for months.

Which brings me back to where I started—looking up and seeing the value of community. To say it’s important is a gross understatement. To Marshall Dennehey, community is everything. It is what enlightens and protects us as an organization. It is what holds us accountable, teaches, refines, motivates and encourages us. It is in community that we are informed, that we collaborate, improve as a law firm and better serve our clients.

It’s a notion we have always grasped and one that’s catching on. It was reported earlier this month that Morgan Stanley’s CLO, Eric Gross, recently delivered a message to outside counsel, declaring the legal industry’s apprenticeship model vital to the development of young lawyers. He noted “individual lawyers learn and perform best and collectively deliver the best results when they are together -actually together.” He went on to opine that “...firms that return to the office will have a significant performance advantage over those that do not, and will see that advantage reflected in their client service and ability to deliver successful outcomes...”

We agree and have always known we’re better together.

That being said, we also see the value of flexibility and are trying to strike the right balance. Long before the pandemic, Marshall Dennehey had developed and implemented a remote work program for attorneys. Inspired by its success and our experience last year, we have now expanded the program to include paralegals and administrative staff. At present, we are operating under a hybrid model and seeking the right mix. Our attorneys and paralegals are required to come into the office at least three days a week and our administrative staff four. Everyone can otherwise work remotely. It’s a popular arrangement that emphasizes community while still affording some flexibility.

It appears to be working well.

Which can also be said of our firm.

I hope after reading this you have a better understanding of what we stand for, what makes Marshall Dennehey special and why I am so grateful to be its CEO. Our story is a powerful proof of concept: no matter what we face, we can do the right thing and still succeed.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

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. 

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.