.

Lance Robinson is an attorney in the firm’s Philadelphia office, where he represents construction companies and contractors, trucking companies, bars and restaurants, commercial property owners and managers, amusement parks, and insurers throughout Pennsylvania. His practice includes matters involving catastrophic injury or death in the areas of construction accidents and defects, trucking and transportation liability, liquor liability, premises liability, and sports and amusement claims. Lance also brings a strong foundation in criminal defense, which enhances his ability to assess risk, evaluate exposure, and develop effective litigation strategies.

Before joining the firm, Lance served as a Trial Attorney with the Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office, representing indigent clients in matters involving Medicare fraud, access device fraud, aggravated assault, and other felony offenses. He conducted detailed client interviews, developed defense strategies, researched statutes and case law, and advocated for clients in preliminary hearings, summary trials, and pre‑trial conferences.

Lance previously operated his own practice, where he provided legal consultations, drafted agreements, and conducted risk‑based analyses for clients. He also volunteered with legal aid organizations, offering pro bono counsel and advocacy to underserved communities.

Earlier in his career, Lance spent a decade at Incyte, where he conducted more than 100 field monitoring events, collaborated with external auditors, developed annual monitoring plans, oversaw compliance investigations, and strengthened organizational risk‑management processes. He played a key role in enhancing the company’s Compliance Risk Assessment process, helping to improve risk‑management strategies and reinforce regulatory compliance across the organization.

Lance earned his juris doctor from Widener University Delaware Law School, where he completed coursework in trial advocacy, interviewing and counseling, and estate‑planning drafting. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Accounting from Wilmington University and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 2024)
    • Wilmington University (B.A., 2014)
    • Pennsylvania, 2024
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association

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.