.

Matthew Flanagan

Co-Chair, Disciplinary Board Representation Practice Group

MKFlanagan@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Matthew Flanagan

Matt is a highly skilled litigator with over 30 years of trial and appellate experience and serves as Co-Chair of the firm's Disciplinary Board Representation Practice Group. His practice is concentrated on the defense of lawyers against malpractice actions, Judiciary Law 487 claims and grievances. He also defends other professionals and handles general litigation matters on behalf of corporate clients. He has successfully tried cases in New York City and its surrounding counties and has secured dozens of victories in attorney liability cases in New York State’s appellate courts.

With a career-long focus on professional liability litigation, Matt lectures throughout the state on legal malpractice prevention and defense, ethics and professional responsibility. His articles relating to attorney ethics have been cited in the authoritative codification of the laws of New York, as well as New York’s leading treatise on the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Among his numerous professional memberships, he is President of the Theodore Roosevelt American Inn of Court and is a member of the New York State Bar Association's Law Practice Management and Insurance Committees. He is a longtime member of the Nassau County Bar Association and served as Chair of the Association’s Ethics Committee from 2019 to 2022. He is also a longtime member of the American Bar Association.

Matt has been recognized annually as a New York Metro Area Super Lawyer for over a decade and is rated AV Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest peer-review ranking for an attorney's professional and ethical competence. A graduate of St. John's University School of Law and Fordham University, he is admitted to practice before the courts of the State of New York, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

    • St. John's University School of Law (J.D., 1992)
    • Fordham University (B.A., 1989)
    • New York, 1993
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 1993
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 1993
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit, 1996
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • New York Metro Area Super Lawyer (2012-2026)
    • American Bar Association (2007-Present)
    • Nassau County Bar Association (1999-present); Ethics Committee (2011-present); Ethics Committee Chairman (2019-2022)
    • New York State Bar Association (1999-present); Law Practice Management & Insurance Committees (2011-present)
    • St. John’s University Alumni Association, Nassau Chapter (2000-present); President (2017-2020)
    • Theodore Roosevelt American Inn of Court, (2011-present); President (October 2023-present)

  • Trends In Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, May 5, 2026

    The Art of Mediation, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, May 5, 2026

    Attorney Discipline, Theodore Roosevelt American Inn of Court (with program chairs Hon. Randall Eng, Appellate Division, Second Department (ret.), and Hon. Helen Voutsinas, Appellate Division, Second Department), November 15, 2023

    Risk Management and the Rules of Professional Conduct, Nassau County Bar Association, May 12, 2022

    Cybersecurity: Are You and Your Firm Compliant: A Checklist for Lawyers, Joint Presentation of Nassau County Women’s Bar Association and Nassau County Bar Association Ethics Committee, March 3, 2020

    Navigating Malpractice and Ethical Concerns for Trusts and Estates Attorneys, St. John’s University School of Law Continuing Legal Education Weekend, February 8, 2020

    Legal Malpractice: Elements & How to Avoid It, Suffolk Academy of Law, December 12, 2019

    Legal Malpractice: Reducing Your Risk and Strengthening Your Defense, St. John’s University School of Law Spring Continuing Legal Education Weekend, February 10, 2018

    Lawyers’ Ethics: Escrow Accounts (with Hon. Leonard Austin, Appellate Division, Second Department), Theodore Roosevelt American Inn of Court, December 12, 2017
    Judicial Ethics, What’s a Judge to Do? (with Hon. Vito DeStefano and Hon. Randy Sue Marber, Supreme Court, Nassau County), Theodore Roosevelt American Inn of Court, April 27, 2017

    Legal Malpractice: Professional Liability Claims, Litigation Strategies and Attorney Discipline Procedures, New York State Bar Association, Melville, New York, March 31, 2017

    Attorney Ethics: A Discussion of the New Statewide Procedures for Attorney Discipline Matters (with Abraham Krieger, Chairman of Grievance Committee for 10th Judicial District), St. John’s University School of Law Continuing Legal Education Weekend, February 25, 2017

    Legal Malpractice Update, Nassau County Bar Association, February 1, 2017

    • “Escrow Cleanup: Taking Care of the Money Left Behind,” NYSBA Journal, Vol. 90, No. 8, New York State Bar Association, October 2018
    • “On Ethics: Agreements Not To Grieve – Are They Ethical?” – Nassau Lawyer, November 1, 2017 
    • “On Ethics: Addressing Claims Against A Client's Settlement Funds,” Nassau Lawyer, March 1, 2017
    • “Bowing Out Ethically: Ending the Attorney-Client Relationship Before the Matter is Completed,” NYSBA Journal, Vol. 88, No. 7, New York State Bar Association, September 2016
    • "Follow the Money - Escrow Accounts: The Dangers of Excessive Delegation and Deference," NYSBA Journal, Vol. 87, No. 5, New York State Bar Association, June 2015

Results

View all

Dismissal Secured in New York Legal Malpractice Matter

We secured a decision granting our motion to dismiss an attorney malpractice matter in Orange County, NY. The plaintiff and daughter of the co-defendants sued her parents and our client for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty denominated as promissory estoppel, and constructive trust and sought damages of $800,000. The co-defendants allegedly purchased a property for the plaintiff to live and work in and agreed to deed the property to the plaintiff once she paid the mortgage in full. Our client created a family trust naming the plaintiff as trustee, in which the property would be transferred to the plaintiff following the death of both parents. However, following a family dispute, the co-defendants replaced the plaintiff as trustee with our client. Upon the request of the co-defendants and in accordance with the terms of the trust, our client transferred the house to another beneficiary. We filed a motion to dismiss on all counts which the court granted in full.

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

California Supreme Court Rejects Automatic Expungement of Attorney Disciplinary Records

January 1, 2026

Last year, we reported on a California State Bar initiative to expunge attorney discipline records, other than disbarment, after eight years. See Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – February 2025. The proposed change was intended to lessen the impact of what was perceived as racial disparities in attorney discipline in California. A 2019 State Bar-commissioned study had found that Black male attorneys in California were more than three times as likely to be placed on probation than white male attorneys. This past October, the California Supreme Court rejected the expungement proposal, without any explanation. The court may have been persuaded by opponents of the measure, many of whom felt that the public is entitled to complete transparency when hiring an attorney. The court may have also been influenced by more recent studies which showed that the racial disparities highlighted in the 2019 study were already narrowing. A study released by the California State Bar in May of 2025 found that while some racial gaps remained, “the discipline system is trending in the right direction.” Whether relied on by the California Supreme Court or not, the report from the 2025 study has some interesting findings which could benefit all attorneys faced with disciplinary complaints. The report suggested that sending letters to encourage attorneys who are subject to disciplinary proceedings to retain counsel may have helped narrow the racial disparities found in the 2019 study. Any attorney facing a disciplinary complaint is well-advised to consult an attorney who is experienced in handing such complaints. Many attorneys are not aware that their lawyers’ professional liability policy likely includes supplemental coverage to pay attorney fees incurred in responding to grievances. The carrier can also help find an attorney to help defend against the grievance should the responding attorney need one. The California Supreme Court’s rejection of the expungement proposal opens the door to the expanded use of the less controversial (and, perhaps, more effective) methods highlighted in the report from the 2025 study, including sending letters to attorneys subject to disciplinary complaints. In addition to encouraging attorneys to retain counsel, the letters could also advise them of the supplemental coverage available under their LPL policies. Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – January 2026 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2026 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact MEDeSatnick@MDWCG.com. 

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

California Initiates Automatic Expungement of Attorney Disciplinary Records

February 1, 2025

In a first-of-its-kind move, the California State Bar endorsed a plan to expunge attorney discipline records—other than disbarment—after eight years. The practical effect of the move is that public discipline would no longer appear on the lawyer’s state bar website profile.  The change is intended, in part, to lessen the impact of what was perceived as racial disparities in attorney discipline in California. A 2019 state bar-commissioned study had found that Black male attorneys in California—who currently make up just 1% of the state’s lawyers—were more than three times as likely to be placed on probation than white male attorneys. Will other states follow? Many of the actions taken by the Attorney Grievance Committees in New York are not public. The Committees issue Letters of Advisement, which are not considered discipline, or Admonitions, which are considered discipline but are not public. The public forms of discipline—censure, suspension and disbarment—are only taken after formal proceedings are initiated in one of the four Appellate Divisions. There have been no studies in New York addressing racial disparities in the administration of public discipline against attorneys in New York, and with a recent rollback in DEI initiatives (AP has reported that McDonald’s is the latest company to eliminate diversity goals), it seems unlikely that there will be anytime soon.  The California proposal was not universally supported. In fact, Reuters reported that 445 comments were received during the public comment phase and 74% of those comments opposed the change. “Non-attorney members of the public [were] most heavily against it,” according to Reuters. Some may argue that the public is entitled to complete transparency when hiring an attorney. Others may argue that the measure does not address the root cause of the problem it purports to address. What are your thoughts?    Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – February 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

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

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.

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

Result

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

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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. 

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney