.

Kaitlyn M. Burns

Portrait of Kaitlyn M. Burns

Kaitlyn (“Katie”) is a member of the Professional Liability Department. Her practice focuses on the defense of public entities and officials in civil rights and employment matters, as well as the defense of insurance brokers and agents, real estate professionals, homeowners associations, and private companies in errors and omissions and employment law matters.  

Katie has extensive experience representing clients in complex and class action matters.  Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, she spent five years working at a plaintiff’s class action law firm, where she litigated multi-million-dollar insurance coverage and bad faith, employee benefit, and consumer protection putative class actions across the country.  In addition to her class action work, she has also secured favorable outcomes for plaintiffs in individual employee benefit, insurance bad faith, construction defect, and shareholder rights disputes.  Her background as a plaintiff’s attorney gives her a unique perspective in identifying potential risk and pursuing favorable outcomes for her clients, particularly in high stakes cases.  

Katie is also intimately familiar with the Pennsylvania court system.  She previously clerked for President Judge Oliver J. Lobaugh of the Venango County Court of Common Pleas, where she worked on a wide array of civil, orphans’ court, and criminal matters.  She has also worked as staff attorney for the Pennsylvania Commission for Fairness & Justice, a commission created by the three branches of the Pennsylvania government to address bias within the Pennsylvania justice system, particularly in Pennsylvania’s courts.  

Katie earned her B.A., summa cum laude, in 2014 from Washington & Jefferson College, where she triple-majored in Political Science, International Studies, and French and minored in History.  She earned her juris doctor, cum laude, in 2017 from Thomas R. Kline School of Law at Duquesne University, where she served as the Executive Articles Editor of the Duquesne Law Review.  During law school, she received CALI Excellence Awards for the Future Awards for top grades in Core Competences for Legal Practice and in Property Law.  She also clerked for multiple judges, including Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, was an active participant in the Civil Rights Clinic, where she represented plaintiffs in employment discrimination matters, and did pro bono work for the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund’s Name Change Project.

Katie currently serves as Chair of the Equal Opportunity & Diversity Committee of the Pennsylvania Commission for Fairness & Justice and as a board member for Pittsburgh National Youth Boxing, a non-profit dedicated to providing under-resourced youth with support, guidance, and opportunities through boxing. 

Katie is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., as well as the U.S. District Courts for the Western District of Pennsylvania and Western District of New York. 

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., cum laude, 2017)
    • Washington & Jefferson College (B.A., summa cum laude, 2014)
    • Pennsylvania, 2017
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021
    • U.S. District Court Western District of New York, 2024
    • District of Columbia, 2026
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • Applicability of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles on Juvenile Human Trafficking Victims, Chatham University, (Nov. 17, 2020).
    • Memorandum in Support of Reform of the Provision of Criminal Indigent Defense Services in Pennsylvania to Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee, Pennsylvania Commission for Fairness & Justice (Oct. 28, 2020) 
    • Pittsburgh National Youth Boxing d/b/a Team 412, Board Member
    • Pennsylvania Commission for Fairness & Justice, Equal Opportunity & Diversity Committee Chair 
    • Class Action Training Institute, Impact Fund, 2023

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.