.

Jessica-Bemah O. Bonsu

Portrait of Jessica-Bemah O. Bonsu

Jessica Bonsu is an associate in the Casualty Department, where she concentrates her practice on the defense of businesses, insurers, and self-insured entities in matters involving general liability, premises and retail liability, hospitality and liquor liability, product liability, and catastrophic claims litigation.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Jessica practiced insurance defense, representing businesses and insurers in a broad range of civil litigation matters. Her experience includes premises liability, hospitality liability, product liability, construction-related claims, employment disputes, and asbestos litigation. Earlier in her career, she served as a Staff Attorney with the Massachusetts Trial Court, where she worked closely with judges on a variety of legal matters and gained valuable courtroom experience.

As a graduate of Suffolk University Law School, Jessica served as Assistant Director of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee and was selected as a Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Fellow, where she taught constitutional law and civic engagement to Boston public high school students. In recognition of her commitment to serving the community, she also received the Pro Bono Distinction Award.

Outside of her legal practice, Jessica enjoys traveling internationally, experiencing new cultures, and spending quality time with her husband and their two children.

Jessica is admitted to practice in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

    • Suffolk University Law School (J.D., 2022)
    • Stockton University (B.A., 2017)
    • Massachusetts, 2023
    • New Jersey, 2025
    • Pennsylvania, 2026
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2026
    • Burlington County Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel

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.