.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2024 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

March 26, 2024

Six attorneys from Marshall Dennehey’s Mount Laurel and Roseland, New Jersey offices have been selected to the 2024 edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected as Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for Super Lawyer Rising Stars. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

2024 New Jersey Super Lawyer

Robert T. Evers, Personal Injury: Medical Malpractice Defense. Robert is the supervising attorney for the Health Care Department in the the firm’s Roseland office. He focuses his practice on medical/dental malpractice, hospital liability, nursing home liability and state board disciplinary actions. He has handled several hundred medical malpractice actions and has represented physicians, nurses and physical therapists at state board disciplinary hearings. He has taken more than 150 cases to trial, the majority of which resulted in a defense verdict (90%) or settlement significantly below the demands. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey. 
 
2024 New Jersey Super Lawyer Rising Stars 

Christopher J. DiCicco, Personal Injury, Products Defense. Christopher serves clients out of our  Mount Laurel and Philadelphia offices. He focuses his practice on product liability, admiralty and maritime litigation, and aviation litigation. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and he actively handles litigation in all three states.

David R. Drake, Medical Malpractice Defense. David works in our Mount Laurel office and concentrates his practice on the defense of health care providers when facing claims and lawsuits. He has represented health care professionals from all disciplines of medicine and nursing, as well as private and public entities in the defense of professional liability and other claims. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

Paul W. Lanza, Personal Injury, General, Defense. Paul serves clients out of our Roseland office, concentrating his practice primarily on trucking/transportation liability, premises/retail liability, and construction injury litigation. Additionally, he handles cases in the fields of condominium/community association law, automobile liability, products liability, and malpractice claims against real estate professionals. He is frequently retained by his clients to handle the pre-suit investigation of high exposure cases involving complex issues of fact and law, including fatal commercial vehicle accidents. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey and New York. 

Brielle K. Winkler, Insurance Coverage. As a member of the firm’s Casualty Department, Brielle provides legal counsel and representation in the areas of automobile liability, underinsured/uninsured motorists claims, premises liability and condominium/community association law. Resident in the firm’s Mount Laurel office, she is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Jeremy J. Zacharias, RPLU, Professional Liability Defense. Jeremy represents and defends attorneys, accountants, insurance producers, corporate directors and officers, and financial institutions, among other clients. He additionally represents clients in privacy and data breach matters and handles cases involving intellectual property, copyright and trademark infringement, as well as trade secret, trade dress technology and media-related litigation. Jeremy serves clients from our Mount Laurel office. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 
 

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.