.

Mark K. McCulloch

Portrait of Mark K. McCulloch

Mark McCulloch is Special Counsel in our Casualty Department. Mark defends clients in matters involving premises liability, focusing on trip and falls on “foreign transitory substances”, and auto liability, including rideshare liability.  In addition to his representation at the trial level, Mark is an accomplished Appellate advocate and counselor with proven experience at all levels of state and federal appellate practice, including in the United States Supreme Court.

Mark is able to provide legal counsel and advice to clients on a wide range of complex legal issues related to liability and risk management. He is skilled at identifying potential claims and defenses based upon comprehensive review of case facts, present controlling legal authority, and his experience as a trial and appellate advocate to assist clients fashion an appropriate litigation strategy tailored and designed to achieve the best outcome for the client.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Mark defended Florida cities, counties, and other public entities such as Community Development Districts protected by Florida’s statutory limited waiver of sovereign immunity in a variety of areas including land use and development code compliance, claims involving public records and open meeting law, claims involving access to public services under the Americans with Disabilities Act, civil rights claims under the federal and state civil rights acts. His significant experience in these areas also included providing pre-suit investigation support and analysis, risk management analysis, and responses to public inquiries following high-profile events. Mark also spent several years as a solo practitioner representing criminal defendants in federal and state appellate courts.

Mark received his Bachelor of Science in Journalism from Emerson College and spent 15 years as a newspaper reporter and editor.  During this time, he received his Master's Degree in Public Administration from American International College. He received his juris doctor from Barry University Dwayne O. Andres School of Law.  

He is admitted to practice in Florida and Pennsylvania, including all state and federal districts. He is also admitted to practice in United States Supreme Court, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits.

    • Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law (J.D., 2008)
    • American International College (M.P.A., magna cum laude, 2004)
    • Emerson College (B.A., 1992)
    • Florida
    • Massachusetts
    • Pennsylvania
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 1st Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania
    • Supreme Court of the United States

Results

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.