.

New Jersey Litigation Leader David G. Tomeo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Roseland Office as a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

March 13, 2023

David G. Tomeo, a litigation leader with more than 30 years of experience across New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York, has joined Marshall Dennehey’s Roseland office as a shareholder in the firm’s Health Care Department. Previously, he chaired the Litigation Department and served as General Counsel at a Livingston, New Jersey based firm. 

Tomeo has devoted his career to civil litigation, with emphasis on medical professional liability, commercial and business litigation, and insurance coverage matters. In addition to defending medical malpractice claims, he is knowledgeable in health law and often handles actions involving the interpretation of hospital and health care provider contracts. He also has experience in representing urgent care center franchisors in medical malpractice suits and handles other matters at the intersection of franchise and medical malpractice law. 

“David is a talented lawyer and we are thrilled to welcome him to the firm,” said Robin B. Snyder, Director of Marshall Dennehey’s Health Care Department. “His background in medical malpractice and insurance coverage, coupled with health law, brings great depth to our practice.” 

Rated AV-Preeminent by Martindale Hubbell, Tomeo has argued before the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. He has also handled matters before federal and state trial courts throughout New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and various other jurisdictions in the United States.  

A graduate of Montclair State University and Seton Hall University School of Law, Tomeo is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the District of New Jersey, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Beyond his practice, he provides pro bono legal services through Volunteer Lawyers for Justice and has been honored with the organization’s "Volunteer of the Year” award.

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.