Marshall Dennehey is uniquely positioned to defend lawyers’ professional liability (LPL) claims, and we have been doing so for over three decades. In addition to defending civil matters, we also represent attorneys in disciplinary matters, and we furnish counseling and risk management advice to law firms.
Our familiarity with the bench and bar fosters our ability to manage sensitive issues inherent in many legal malpractice and bar complaint matters. Representing our colleagues at the bar requires tact, finesse, experience and poise, and our attorneys are especially sensitive to reputational issues.
The prototypical legal malpractice case involves two matters: the act or omission of the attorney and the underlying lawsuit or transaction. With approximately 50 distinct practice groups, Marshall Dennehey’s LPL clients benefit from our firmwide civil defense litigation practice. For example, when a legal malpractice claim derives from an underlying medical malpractice matter, members of our Health Care Liability Practice Group bring depth and added knowledge to the defense of the matter.
In addition to the firm’s prowess in defending attorneys and their firms, Marshall Dennehey is proud of its success in providing creative solutions to traditional legal issues. The attorneys within the practice group look for “business solutions” and have structured the resolution of cases by resurrecting the underlying transaction which gave rise to the legal malpractice claim.
The attorneys within this practice are involved in precedent-setting matters. Also, we are thought leaders in the professional liability industry as frequent authors and speakers on risk management and legal malpractice defense.
In addition to defending these claims in the seven states where our offices are located, we try cases as lead counsel on a national basis and associate with local counsel when necessary. The firm has provided counsel to respected lawyers from essentially every domestic insurance carrier and has represented lawyers through the London market.
Results
Successful Defense of High‑Profile Condo Board Election Challenge as Court Dismisses Claims With Prejudice
One Month – 4 Outstanding Results! Aaron Moore Obtained Four Successful Results on Behalf of Clients in the Span of One Month
Defense verdict on behalf of a real estate broker and agent. The plaintiffs, homebuyers, claimed that the sellers’ broker and agent were liable to them for the value of fixtures that were taken by the sellers when they vacated the property, which were alleged to have been included in the sale. At a bench trial, the judge determined that neither the broker nor the agent could be held liable to the plaintiffs because the representations regarding what was included in the sale were made by the sellers. Supreme Court affirmance of dismissal of a complex legal malpractice lawsuit. Aaron and Carol Vanderwoude obtained a Delaware Supreme Court affirmance of the trial court’s dismissal of a complex legal malpractice claim. The plaintiffs, seven affiliated companies and their owners in the business of developing property, had been sued by their bank for defaulting on multiple lines of credit. The bank filed multiple lawsuits against the property developers, claiming approximately $7 million in damages, plus attorneys’ fees, which were recoverable pursuant to the terms of the promissory notes. The property developers retained our client to defend the lawsuits, asserting that the amounts claimed to be owed to the bank were significantly overstated. Our client vigorously defended the bank’s underlying lawsuits. Ultimately, the property developers settled the bank’s lawsuits for the entire amount owed, plus interest and the bank’s legal fees. The developers argued that its attorneys should have advised them to settle the bank’s claims after the lawsuits were commenced and that, if they had done so, they would not have had to pay the bank’s legal fees, our client’s legal fees, or expert witness fees, or the additional interest on the loan. The property developers also claimed that not settling with the bank earlier caused them lost business opportunities valued at nearly $1 million. The plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claims were dismissed because their expert witness, a Maryland attorney with no business litigation experience, was not qualified to serve as an expert and because their damages claims were speculative. Motion to dismiss in complex matter involving claims of fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contractual relations, and piercing the corporate veil. The plaintiff, an investment fund, had purchased a business that was controlled and primarily owned by our client. The business ultimately went bankrupt, and the plaintiff claimed that the purchase was premised upon misrepresentation by our client. The plaintiff maintained that jurisdiction in Delaware was proper pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement. The District Court was persuaded by arguments reflecting that it lacked personal jurisdiction over our client, a citizen of Canada, even though he signed the Asset Purchase Agreement which included language conferring jurisdiction over claims arising from the sale in Delaware. The court agreed that our client did not sign the agreement in his individual capacity, and the plaintiff’s piercing the corporate veil allegations were insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. Dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim. Obtained dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim brought by a condominium unit owner against the attorneys who represented her condominium association. The unit owner claimed that the law firm was liable to her for unjust enrichment in connection with legal fees it received from the association for legal services provided in efforts to collect on past due assessments owed by the unit owner. Pursuant to the association’s governing documents, the charges were passed on to the unit owner. The court agreed that the fees that were paid to our client by the condominium association were properly earned.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability
New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion
July 23, 2026
Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.
Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability
AI Misuse in Legal Filings Leads to Second Sanction and Mandatory CLE Requirements
May 7, 2026
In an order issued April 20, 2026, the Hon. Kai N. Scott of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania imposed sanctions on an attorney for including hallucinated AI-generated citations in a filing, for the second time in the same matter. First, following the imposition of attorney’s fees as an unrelated sanction, Raja Rajan, Esquire, who had represented the defendants, filed a motion for leave to appeal of sanctions of defense counsel and a motion to withdraw as attorney for all defendants. The court found five citations that were either wholly hallucinated or did not support the proposition for which they were cited. Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations, Inc., et al, No. CV 23-1740, 2025 WL 4231632, at *1, n.1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2025). The court ordered Mr. Rajan to show cause why the filing did not violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2), which holds that, “[b]y presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper. . .an attorney. . .certifies that to the best of [his] knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law[.]” The court also noted that such citations in a filing potentially violated Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal. The court ultimately imposed sanctions of $2,500 for that violation. Following the conclusion of the underlying matter, the plaintiff sought travel costs for a cancelled deposition. In response, Mr. Rajan filed an omnibus motion seeking sanctions and objecting to the imposition of travel costs. That motion again contained AI-hallucinated citations, which the plaintiff noted in his response. The court explained that the standard for the review of conduct under Rule 11 is “reasonableness under the circumstances, [...] with reasonableness defined as an objective knowledge or belief at the time of the filing of a challenged paper that the claim was well-grounded in law and fact[;]” and that the Third Circuit has said that “Rule 11 requires only negligence[.]” Bunce, 2026 WL 1082135, at *2. The court ultimately held that there was no reasonable explanation for the inclusion of AI-generated citations, and that it is fundamental that attorneys verify that cited authority supports the proposition for which it is cited. For this Rule 11 violation, the court imposed sanctions of $5,000, and required Mr. Rajan to complete additional CLE courses on AI and legal ethics, and provide proof of relevant CLEs he had previously taken.
