Greg is a member of the Professional Liability Department whose practice focuses on the defense of corporations and professionals in commercial, construction and class action litigation. He also defends attorneys in legal liability actions covering a wide range of malpractice claims including those arising from civil and family disputes, business transactions in the real estate and oil and gas industries, and commercial litigation.
Greg has substantial experience defending high-value class action cases at both the state and federal level. In doing so, he prioritizes the development of an early case strategy to defeat class certification in order to minimize his clients’ potential liability and damage exposure. He has successfully defeated class certification in multiple jurisdictions for clients facings claims of invasion of privacy, violations of state and federal electronic communication protection acts, and allegations of improper assessment and conversion of state sales taxes. When certification cannot be avoided, Greg develops an aggressive discovery strategy to minimize class size and damage exposure. He has obtained summary judgment dismissals and favorable settlements in class actions in both state and federal court.
Greg's construction practice includes the representation of owners, contractors, and design professionals from defect and commercial loss claims related to the construction industry. He has litigated on behalf of clients in matters arising from publicly and privately-funded projects in state and federal court across the country. He also defends construction entities in the natural gas and energy industry facing high-exposure commercial loss and environmental claims.
Greg has experience litigating on behalf of securities professionals in court and FINRA arbitration. He has successfully assisted financial management companies in responding to administrative investigations brought by state and industry regulatory agencies.
He is also proficient in matters involving significant E-Discovery and document discovery. His experience with managing large-scale E-discovery efforts minimizes unnecessary cost while also allowing Marshall Dennehey to provide the best defense possible for its clients in discovery-intensive cases.
Greg was a 2013 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. While in law school, Greg was invited to be a visiting research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg, Germany. He was also an Articles Editor for the Journal of Technology Law & Policy and a member of two award-winning moot court teams.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability
Pennsylvania Superior Court Effectively Expands Statute of Limitations for Legal Malpractice Claims in Pennsylvania
March 1, 2026
After much anticipation, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued its en banc decision in Poteat v. Asteak on December 11, 2025. In Poteat, the Superior Court sitting en banc confirmed an earlier opinion addressing the question of whether the “gist of the action” doctrine applies to legal malpractice claims. In a disappointing ruling for the defense bar, the court ruled that it does not. In doing so, it has created uncertainty moving forward as to the defense of legal malpractice actions sounding in breach of contract. Poteat arose from a legal malpractice lawsuit following appellee-attorneys’ provision of legal services to an appellant in a criminal matter. In the legal malpractice action, the trial court granted the appellees’ preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the action via application of the gist of the action doctrine. The appellant set forth a breach of contract claim, arguing that since the breach of contract claim sounded in tort, namely negligence, it should be treated as such by application of the gist of the action doctrine. Accordingly, the two-year statute of limitations applicable to negligence barred the claim. Appellees further argued that the complaint was legally insufficient because it failed to allege a breach of a specific executory promise in the retainer agreement. The plaintiff appealed. The Superior Court’s en banc decision held that hiring an attorney automatically creates an implied contract term that the attorney will provide competent legal services, regardless of whether the contract includes any explicit contractual term promising such. In doing so, the Superior Court has provided authority for plaintiffs in legal malpractice claims to assert the existence and breach of an implied duty that arises from a specific legal contract, without regard to the expressed language of that agreement. In essence, the court eviscerated any gist of the action application to legal malpractice claims and ignored prior precedent which also held that breach of contract claims must be based upon the contract itself, rather than implied terms. Even more problematic for the defense of legal malpractice lawsuits is the fact that this ruling effectively means that all Pennsylvania lawyers’ professional liability claims will be subject to a four-year contract statute of limitations. A negligence claim that an attorney deviated from a professional standard of care that may have been dismissed for falling outside the two-year statute of limitations time period may now be pursued under an alternate breach of contract theory which is subject to a four-year statute. There was a vigorous dissent which was joined by three Superior Court judges. This decision has been appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court given the severity of its potential implications.
Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability
Invoking the Mandatory Mediation Clause Against Buyers – A Beneficial Strategic Tactic
November 1, 2025
When facing claims, Pennsylvania real estate agents too often view the mandatory mediation paragraph found within the Standard Agreement for the Sale of Real Estate as little more than boilerplate. In practice, however, this clause can be a valuable and strategic tool for the successful defense of claims. Rather than overlooking such a useful tool, real estate agents should consider invoking the mandatory mediation provision to obtain significant advantages in cost management, liability clarity, and settlement posture. The mandatory mediation provision typically contains the following language: Buyer and Seller will submit all disputes or claims that arise from this Agreement, including disputes and claims over deposit monies, to mediation. Mediation will be conducted in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of the Home Sellers/Home Buyers Dispute Resolution System, unless it is not available, in which case Buyer and Seller will mediate according to the terms of the mediation system offered or endorsed by the local Association of Realtors®. Mediation fees, contained in the mediator’s fee schedule, will be divided equally among the parties and will be paid before the mediation conference. This mediation process must be concluded before any party to the dispute may initiate legal proceedings in any courtroom, with the exception of filing a summons if it is necessary to stop any statute of limitations from expiring. Any agreement reached through mediation and signed by the parties will be binding. Any agreement to mediate disputes or claims arising from this Agreement will survive settlement. This section precludes either the buyer or seller from initiating a legal action without first attempting to mediate the dispute. The only exception identified within the provision allows for the filing of a summons to halt the application of any potential statute of limitations. At first glance, the provision would not appear to be available to agents involved in the transaction; however, the language is clear that all disputes that arise from the agreement are subject to the mandatory mediation requirement. Upon receipt of a pre-suit claim, real estate professionals should consider invoking this provision to bring all claims and involved parties to mediation. Alternatively, if a lawsuit has already been filed, real estate agents should consider the merits of filing a Motion to Stay and to Compel Mediation pursuant to the provision. There are numerous benefits to do so. Cost Savings Through Early Resolution Pre-suit mediation offers a controlled, confidential, and relatively inexpensive forum for resolving the dispute while the parties are still evaluating their willingness to engage in the costs of discovery, depositions and motion practice. By invoking the mediation provision promptly after a buyer identifies a pre-suit claim or upon the receipt of a complaint, an agent and their counsel can participate in a structured discussion aimed at resolution without the procedural overhead of court involvement. Even if mediation does not result in a full settlement, narrowing the issues can dramatically reduce later litigation expenses. Insurers can separately consider the benefits of early mediation for their insureds, as it signals proactive risk management and can help avoid unnecessary defense costs. Clarifying Responsibility Through Information Exchange Claims made by the buyer against real estate agents are often defended on the grounds that the seller’s or buyer’s own actions are the cause of the buyer’s damages. Forcing those parties to mediation encourages the early and informal exchange of key documents—inspection reports, disclosure forms, repair records—that can help inform the parties’ assessment of who bears actual responsibility. When the facts are developed cooperatively, rather than through adversarial discovery, the mediation process often highlights that the real estate agent’s role was limited to communication rather than concealment. This can refocus the dispute toward the truly responsible party and may even resolve the matter without further involvement of the agent. Managing Plaintiff Expectations for Future Negotiations Even if resolution cannot be achieved during the mediation process, a mandatory attempt early in the life of a claim also serves as an effective opportunity to set realistic expectations for a buyer-plaintiff’s potential recovery. Through the mediator’s neutral perspective, plaintiffs often gain a clearer understanding of the legal limits on agent liability, the availability of defenses—such as the reliance on seller representations—and the challenges of proving causation and damages, especially if the buyer waiver or failure to inspect questions are involved. Even if mediation does not fully settle the case, it can temper inflated expectations and create a more productive environment for subsequent negotiations. In short, mediation under the Pennsylvania Standard Agreement is not merely a procedural requirement—it is a strategic defense opportunity. By embracing early mediation, real estate agents can reduce costs, clarify liability and shape the tone of any future dispute toward resolution rather than escalation. Legal Update for Real Estate E&O – November 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
