.

Chairman, Board of Directors

Director, Casualty Department

Portrait of Matthew S. Schorr

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA

June 4, 2026

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA

Marshall Dennehey is proud to announce that the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability Practice and leaders of the firm’s Pennsylvania and Florida appellate practices have received top recognition in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA. Chambers rankings are among the most respected legal rankings in the industry and are compiled through the assessment of the firm’s work and opinions from external market sources, with an emphasis on client feedback.

Pennsylvania Product Liability Practice
The firm’s Pennsylvania product liability practice was recognized for the second time, earning a Band 2 ranking in the statewide category. Attorneys within this department defend cases alleging defects in the manufacture, design, failure to warn and breach of warranty of every imaginable product variety, including mass tort and asbestos litigation. Representing foreign and domestic manufacturers, they also act as national coordinating counsel and regional counsel in a number of state and federal courts.

“Their mastery of the record and ability to translate complex issues into clear, persuasive arguments consistently sets them apart,” one client commented about the department.

“Marshall Dennehey provides a smart, effective defense performed in good faith, always keeping in mind the best interests of the client,” said another.

Vlada Tasich, Co-Chair, Pennsylvania Product Liability Practice 
Additionally, Vlada Tasich, who Co-Chairs the firm’s product liability practice group with Bradley D. Remick, was individually ranked for the second time in the Pennsylvania product liability category Liability (PA), for his work defending clients in complex product liability litigation. His experience encompasses all aspects of motor vehicle design and manufacture, including product litigation involving Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). He additionally defends cases involving consumer goods, appliances and electronics, residential and industrial fires, durable medical equipment, industrial equipment, exercise equipment and more.

Speaking of Vlada’s approach, clients commented: “Vlada provides exceptional client service demonstrating consistent responsiveness, clear communication and a strong commitment to meeting the client’s business needs.”

“Vlada is a brilliant litigator who consistently provides numerous strategic options with risk and cost analysis,” said another.

John J. Hare, Chair, Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group
John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and a member of the firm’s Executive Committee, has been ranked for the second time in Band 1 for Pennsylvania Appellate Litigation. Hare was recognized for his extensive appellate experience and strategic insight in complex litigation matters. “John Hare is highly responsive and extremely sophisticated. He is excellent all around,” said a client.

Kimberly K. Berman, Shareholder, Florida Lead, Appellate Law
In Florida, Kimberly K. Berman, shareholder in the firm’s Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice, was individually ranked for the first time in the Florida Appellate Litigation category for her advocacy on behalf of the firm’s Florida clients. Berman, who is Board-certified in Appellate Practice by The Florida Bar, is the firm’s lead Florida appellate attorney, serving as a critical resource for the firm's clients and attorneys in the state who rely on her to handle their most significant pre-trial motions, post-trial motions, and appeals.

“Kimberly Berman is deeply committed to her work and to achieving excellent results for her clients,” said a client. Another remarked, “Kimberly Berman is just an excellent lawyer. She’s very smart, on top of the appellate issues, and very in tune with the law and the facts.”

Another client commented, “Kimberly is a fantastic lawyer. She is extremely well spoken and an even better writer.”

“We’re proud to have John, Vlada, and now Kimberly, recognized for their individual excellence, and to have our product liability practice honored for their fantastic work. This continued recognition reflects the depth of our talent across offices and our ongoing commitment to delivering exceptional results for our clients,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO.

For more information, please visit: https://chambers.com/law-firm/marshall-dennehey-pc-usa-5:2843.

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.