.

Member, Executive Committee

Chair, Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice

Portrait of John J. Hare

Two Marshall Dennehey Practice Group Leaders Named “Best of the Bar” by the Philadelphia Business Journal

October 13, 2023

Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that John J. “Jack” Delany, III, Chair of the firm’s Catastrophic Claims Litigation Practice Group, and John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group, have been named 2023 Best of the Bar honorees in the area of Business Litigation by the Philadelphia Business Journal (PBJ).

The annual program recognizes the region’s most impactful lawyers, based on their recent achievements including the legal significance of their successes, the scale of their results, and the business impacts of their accomplishments.

“It is no surprise to me that Jack and John were selected for this significant legal honor,” said G. Mark Thompson, President & CEO of Marshall Dennehey. “They handle some of the Commonwealth’s most significant litigation and have secured favorable outcomes for our clients in numerous high-stakes situations. They have also set a gold standard for professionalism, meticulous preparation and strategic thinking.” 

Delany routinely defends catastrophic, high-profile, high-exposure cases against some of the country’s most formidable plaintiffs’ firms. He has taken to conclusion more than 60 jury trials, as well as hundreds of bench trials, arbitrations and mediations. He and his team represent clients in litigation involving fire and explosion claims, sexual assaults, negligent security, and hospitality and dram shop claims. He also handles specialty, high-risk claims in the areas of amusements, entertainment, recreational, sports and specialty events.

Delany additionally represents many Fortune 500 companies directly and as insureds, and handles complex litigation matters at the federal and state levels and in administrative agencies and alternate dispute resolution forums. He also serves as national coordinating counsel for several product manufacturers. 

In addition to his leadership of the appellate group, Hare is a member of Marshall Dennehey’s Board of Directors. A past Best of the Bar winner (2018), he has litigated more than 500 appeals in state and federal appellate courts. As litigation counsel, Hare has represented individuals, insurers and corporations in some of the most high-profile litigation in recent Pennsylvania history, including dozens of cases with verdicts and settlements in excess of $10 million.

Attorneys both inside and outside of the firm, and from around the state and nationally, rely on him and his ten-attorney appellate team to handle their most significant post-trial motions and appeals. He is often asked to monitor high-exposure cases and serve as appellate counsel during trial to ensure that important legal issues are properly raised and preserved for post-trial motions and appeals.

Delany, Hare and the other Best of the Bar honorees will be recognized at an awards program on November 16th at Rivers Casino in Philadelphia. 

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.