.

Marshall Dennehey Earns Four Finalist Honors in 2025 Pennsylvania Legal Awards

April 17, 2025

Marshall Dennehey has been named a finalist in four categories as part of The Legal Intelligencer and Law.com 2025 Pennsylvania Legal Awards. The categories include:

Attorney of the Year – Gary Samms, Esq., Finalist
Gary Samms has tried 210 medical malpractice cases over the course of his career and 20 in the past year alone. Known for his superlative cross-examination technique and ability to navigate highly contentious litigation, he is the go-to attorney for some of the region’s most well-known and prestigious hospital and health care systems when they are facing high-exposure and catastrophic claims
 
Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Finalist (and previous winner in 2024)
Under the direction of John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group has been retained to challenge the majority of so-called “nuclear” verdicts ($10+ million) that were rendered or pending in Pennsylvania courts in 2024. The group’s eight full-time appellate lawyers based in Pennsylvania have more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post-trial and appellate matters, and they are also engaged to actively participate in and monitor trials in high-exposure cases to ensure that important legal issues are properly raised and preserved for post-trial motions and appeals. 

Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Finalist
For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to our Pennsylvania Product Liability Practice Group and our Environmental & Toxic Tort Practice Groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our environmental and toxic tort defense attorneys, led by Daniel J. Ryan, Jr. and Kevin Hexstall, defend toxic tort personal injury actions, environmental property damage claims, environmental remediations and insurance coverage disputes arising out of environmental or toxic tort matters throughout the Commonwealth.
 
Litigation Department of the Year – Professional Liability, Finalist 
Nearly half of Marshall Dennehey’s Pennsylvania attorneys focus in the areas of medical and non-medical professional liability litigation. These attorneys are housed within our Health Care Department, led by Robin Snyder, and our Professional Liability Department, led by Craig Hudson. In 2024 alone, the combined departments handled 5,819 professional liability matters in Pennsylvania and closed 1,957 files—an average of 484 cases per month. The group is recognized throughout Pennsylvania for its trial success, strategic defense, and leadership in professional liability law. 

The winners in the finalist categories will be announced at an awards dinner set for June 12, 2025 at the Hilton at Penn’s Landing in Philadelphia. More information may be found here: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2025/04/14/the-legal-intelligencer-announces-2025-pennsylvania-legal-awards-finalists-honorees/. 

Marshall Dennehey’s Appellate, Professional Liability, and Health Care groups have all previously been recognized as Litigation Departments of the Year by The Legal Intelligencer.
 

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.