.

Member, Executive Committee

Chair, Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice

Portrait of John J. Hare

Marshall Dennehey Appellate Leader John J. Hare Elected to Firm’s Executive Committee

December 16, 2025

Marshall Dennehey announced today that John J. Hare, chair of Marshall Dennehey’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and a member of the firm’s Board of Directors, has been elected to the firm’s Executive Committee, effective January 1, 2026. Hare’s election took place at the firm’s annual shareholder meeting on December 9. He joins firm President & CEO, G. Mark Thompson, and Matthew S. Schorr, Director of the firm’s Casualty Department, on the committee, succeeding retiring firm leader Craig S. Hudson, who will continue with the firm in an Emeritus role.   

“John will be a tremendous addition to the firm’s Executive Committee,” said Thompson. “He’s the lawyer great lawyers call for advice, the lawyer judges perk up and listen to when he stands to speak, and whose judgment clients trust when millions are on the line. His intellect is matched only by his inexhaustible willingness to help others. He transcends practice groups, makes everyone around him better and never takes the credit. So many of our lawyers have benefited personally over the years from his guidance and support, whether preparing for trial, at trial, needing to preserve a win or reverse a loss. John is, quite simply, the best of Marshall Dennehey’s culture personified.”   

Hare joined Marshall Dennehey in 1999 and has led the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group since 2003. Over the course of his career he has litigated more than 500 appeals in state and federal appellate courts. As litigation counsel, he has represented individuals, insurers, and corporations in some of the highest-profile litigation in recent Pennsylvania history, including dozens of cases with verdicts and settlements in excess of $10 million.

Among his numerous professional activities, Hare serves by appointment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as co-chair of its Historical Commission and as a member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence. He additionally spent six years on the Supreme Court’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the last two as chair, and has co-authored and edited two books on the Pennsylvania appellate courts. He is an active member of the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations, and has served on the Board of Governors for the Bar Association for the Third Federal Circuit. He is recognized for excellence in appellate law by Chambers USA and the Legal 500, and is a two-time winner of the Philadelphia Business Journal’s “Best of the Bar Award.” 

Hare is a graduate of Indiana University of Pennsylvania and received his J.D. from the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University. He additionally holds an M.A. from the University of California, Berkeley and completed coursework for his Ph.D. at Princeton University. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania (1994), as well as before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fourth Circuits, and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of Pennsylvania.
 

John Hare Elected to MD EC

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.