.

Lawyers' Professional Liability

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

View all
blurred out judge banging gavel photo

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

View all

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.

New Jersey Appellate Division Clarifies Limits of Transactional Attorneys’ Duties and Proof of Damages in Legal Malpractice Claims

April 21, 2026

On April 15, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an important decision in Gonzalez v. DiBello, et al., A‑2334‑24 (App. Div. Apr. 15, 2026), affirming summary judgment in favor of a transactional attorney accused of legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Marshall Dennehey’s Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias successfully represented the attorney‑defendant. The decision provides significant guidance to both the malpractice defense bar and transactional practitioners, particularly regarding the scope of an attorney’s duty of care, the role of expert testimony, and the proof required to establish causation and damages. The malpractice action stemmed from an underlying federal lawsuit arising out of a failed transaction to purchase a Kia dealership. An investor alleged that the purchasers and their counsel engaged in a fraudulent scheme, asserting claims including fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy. Although the federal complaint named the transactional attorney, the claims against her were dismissed, and she was never found liable. The attorney neither represented the investor nor provided him with legal advice and was unaware that he was the ultimate source of investment funds. Her role was limited to preparing transaction documents required by the manufacturer to reflect a transfer of ownership interests. Following dismissal of the federal action, purchaser Christopher Gonzalez filed a legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty action against the attorney. Gonzalez relied on expert reports asserting that the attorney had a duty to investigate the source of funds, determine whether her client was financially capable of consummating the transaction, and uncover any disqualifying relationships among investors. The trial court rejected those opinions, holding that New Jersey law does not impose upon transactional attorneys a duty to investigate the origins of funds passing through a trust account or to assess a client’s financial capacity absent specific circumstances. The Appellate Division affirmed, reiterating that an attorney’s duty in a transaction is “to exercise that degree of reasonable knowledge and skill that lawyers of ordinary ability and skill possess and exercise,” and that alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct do not, standing alone, create a cause of action. The Appellate Division also affirmed dismissal based on the plaintiff’s failure to establish damages and causation through competent expert testimony. Gonzalez sought, among other things, to recover all legal fees incurred defending the federal action and alleged loss of investment. However, his expert offered what the courts deemed a classic “net opinion,” failing to analyze the reasonableness of the fees, allocate which fees were allegedly caused by the claimed malpractice, or quantify any lost benefit of the bargain. The court emphasized that when damages are an essential element of a legal malpractice claim, expert testimony must do more than assert conclusions—it must explain how and why specific damages were proximately caused by the attorney’s conduct. Absent such an analysis, allowing a jury to award all defense fees would impermissibly convert compensatory damages into speculative or liquidated damages. Finally, the Appellate Division rejected Gonzalez’s attempt to salvage his claims through a “suit‑within‑a‑suit” theory or a parallel breach of fiduciary duty claim. Citing Morris Properties, Inc. v. Wheeler, the court reaffirmed that plaintiffs cannot avoid their prima facie proof requirements by invoking trial methodologies, and that expert testimony remains necessary in esoteric malpractice cases. The court further held that Gonzalez could not show he would have recovered in the underlying federal action, particularly where he and the attorney were dismissed from that case. The fiduciary duty claim was properly dismissed as duplicative of the malpractice claim and failed for the same lack of proof on causation and damages. This decision is a significant reaffirmation of rigorous proof standards in transactional malpractice cases and provides meaningful protection against expansive and speculative damages theories.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey