.

John F. Deasy

Portrait of John F. Deasy

John practices in the firm's Casualty Department. He concentrates his practice in the area of general liability including premises liability, product liability, construction accident and defects, fire and explosions, amusements, sports and entertainment liability, liquor liability, auto, and trucking and transportation litigation. Additionally, John has experience in cases involving elevators, escalators, moving walkways, electronic doorways, cranes and lifts.

An active trial attorney since 1992, he has represented property owners and managers of large shopping malls, sports and entertainment centers, amusement parks, stadiums, arenas, office buildings, residential complexes, hotels, bars and restaurants.  

John has represented project owners, contractors, trucking companies, bus companies, highway contractors and parking garage owners and operators along with product manufacturers, distributors and retailers including department stores. He has also represented many small business owners such as barber shops, auto repairs shops and sub-contractors. 

John has practiced and tried cases in many of the state courts in western Pennsylvania and federal court. John received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Pittsburgh in 1987. In 1991, he received his juris doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    • University of Pittsburgh School of Law (J.D., 1991)
    • University of Pittsburgh (B.A., 1987)
    • Pennsylvania, 1991
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 1991
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants (2025-2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2017-2019)
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
  • Obtained summary judgment in a wrongful death/survival action arising from a fatal shooting, resulting in dismissal of all claims against their clients, the alleged shooter and his employer. ​The case stemmed from a remodeling dispute in which the decedent confronted one of the defendants, threatened him, and pointed a gun at him, after which the defendant shot the decedent in self-defense. The court granted summary judgment based on a Lamp v. Heyman argument, finding the plaintiff failed to timely and diligently serve the defendants before the statute of limitations expired. The court also granted summary judgment to Wesley and Sylvia Deaderick on corporate veil grounds and to Deaderick Enterprises, Inc., holding there was no basis for vicarious or direct liability because the shooting was outside the scope of employment and no negligent training or supervision was established.

    • “Pennsylvania’s Relaxed Standard for Proving Intoxication in Civil Cases,” Defense Digest, December 2018, Vol. 24, No. 4
    • Defending Roller Skating Claims, Roller Skating Association (RSA) Chapter Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, October 24, ,2022

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.