.

Mark J. Kozlowski

Portrait of Mark J. Kozlowski

As a member of the Professional Liability Department, Mark focuses his practice on civil rights, constitutional law and municipal liability. 

Mark has represented a number of governmental agencies and municipalities over the years in matters ranging from police excessive force and wrongful arrest cases to premises liability lawsuits.  He represents public entities and officials in cases arising under state law, federal civil rights statutes and the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. He has also handled the defense of Homeowner Associations and officers in matters involving challenges to voting procedures, changes to short-term rental policies, employment discrimination and retaliation. 

In addition, Mark publishes the Marshall Dennehey Municipal Law newsletter. Mark has experience in the areas of zoning appeals, administrative proceedings, and trial court and appellate practice. He has handled civil rights litigation at the trial court and appellate levels, including experience practicing before the Supreme Court of the United States on multiple occasions. In 2021, Mark was elected Greenfield Township (Lackawanna County) Judge of Election. In 2023, Mark became a certified mediator on the mediator panel for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Mediation Program.

Mark received his juris doctor from Michigan State University College of Law in 2010. While in law school, he served as editor-in-chief of the Journal of International Law and as an associate editor of Res Ipsa Loquitor, the College of Law's newspaper. Mark was a member of the Student Bar Association and spoke on several panels at the National Conference of Law Reviews relating to successful management of law reviews, budget considerations and leadership. He also interned for the Lackawanna County District Attorney's Office.

Following law school, Mark served as a law clerk for the Honorable Edwin M. Kosik of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Following his clerkship, Mark began his private legal career with a general civil practice firm in Maryland.

Mark received his Bachelor of Science degree from Kutztown University of Pennsylvania in business administration and majored in marketing and business management. He also completed a minor in political science. While completing his undergraduate degree at Kutztown University, Mark served as president of the Recreational and Sports Club Council and spent four seasons as a defensive player with the lacrosse team.

    • Michigan State University College of Law (J.D., 2010)
    • Kutztown University of Pennsylvania (B.S., 2007)
    • Pennsylvania, 2010
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2010
    • Maryland, 2011
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2014
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 2018
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2019-2023)
    • Lackawanna County Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division, Board of Directors, 2016-2018
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Civil Rights and the 14th Amendment, Marywood University’s The Courts and Our Community Lecture Series, October 1, 2025
    • FLSA – Wage and Labor Laws, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, June 29, 2023
    • Recruitment and Selection, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, March 30, 2023
    • Employment Law Basics: The Basis of OSHA, FLSA, ADA & More, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, November 17, 2022
    • Performance Management & Record Retention: Avoiding Discrimination - What is Needed to Make a Hire and be Fired, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, August 18, 2022
    • Pay & Benefits: Overtime, Minimum Wage, Compensable Time & Legally Required Benefits, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, May 19, 2022
    • Recruitment & Selection: Where to Find Talent & the Do’s/Dont’s of Interviewing, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, February 17, 2022
    • Local Government Immunity in Pennsylvania, client seminar, June 8, 2021
    • Essential Handbook Must-Haves and Updates, National Business Institute, October 18, 2017
    • Workplace Behavior and Privacy Issues, Human Resource Law: What You Need to Know Now, National Business Institute, December 2016
    • Hiring/Recruiting, Human Resource Law: What You Need to Know Now, National Business Institute, December 2016
    • Employment Law: Rights, Benefits, and Emerging Issues, Sterling Education Services, August 2, 2016
    • Employment Law: Beyond the Basics, Sterling Education Services, August 4, 2015
    • Legal Updates for Pennsylvania Municipal Law, contributor and editor, September 2019-present
    • “Third Circuit Reaffirms Ripeness Doctrine in Civil Rights Claim and Need to Exhaust State Remedies Before Pursuing a Fifth Amendment Takings Claim,” Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 3, September 2017
    • "The Fire Protection Engineer Expert," Fire Protection Contractor, April 2012
    • United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, Certified Mediator

Results

Summary Judgment Affirmed by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Police Pursuit Case

We were affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of our client in a high-speed police pursuit case. The plaintiff was severely injured after a brief police pursuit involving the driver, who died as a result of the pursuit. The plaintiff then sued the local municipality for negligence, arguing that the officers caused the wreck by turning a traffic stop into a high-speed chase. Following discovery, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Township, finding that the so-called vehicle exception to municipal liability found in the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act did not apply. The trial court reasoned that pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Sellers v. The Township of Abington, 106 A. 3d 679 (Pa. 2014), the defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care because his existence or connection to the driver were unknown to the officers at the time of the pursuit. The Commonwealth Court issued an opinion affirming the trial court and held that the exception to the exception for vehicle liability involving high-speed police pursuits did not apply because the plaintiff was unable to establish the threshold requirement that the defendants owed him a duty of care.

Defense Obtains Dismissal of a Complex Federal Civil Rights Action

We obtained the dismissal of a federal civil rights action alleging that a municipality retaliated against a real estate developer after the sale of a large tract of local property.

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.