.

Chairman, Board of Directors

Director, Casualty Department

Portrait of Matthew S. Schorr

Marshall Dennehey Secures Four Finalist Honors in the 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards

April 15, 2026

Marshall Dennehey has been recognized as a finalist in four categories of The Legal Intelligencer and Law.com’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, including the prestigious Attorney of the Year honor, for which John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group, and Executive Committee member, is a co-finalist. The categories are:

Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter, Finalist
Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a  preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side; and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion.  They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community.

Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Finalist (previous winner, 2025 & 2024)
2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court.

The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters and bring more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal.

Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Finalist 
For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to our Pennsylvania Product Liability Practice Group and our Environmental & Toxic Tort Practice Groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state.

Likewise, our environmental and toxic tort defense attorneys, led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Daniel J. Ryan, defend toxic tort personal injury actions, environmental property damage claims, environmental remediations and insurance coverage disputes arising out of environmental or toxic tort matters throughout the Commonwealth.
 
Litigation Department of the Year – Professional Liability, Finalist (previous winner, 2025)
Nearly half of Marshall Dennehey’s Pennsylvania attorneys concentrate their practices in medical and non‑medical professional liability litigation. These practitioners are part of the firm’s Health Care Department, led by Robin B. Snyder, and its Professional Liability Department, led by James H. Cole. Together, these teams are widely recognized across Pennsylvania for their trial results, strategic defense capabilities, and leadership in the professional liability arena.

Pennsylvania’s professional liability landscape remains one of the most challenging in the country, with rising case volumes, a historic surge in nuclear verdicts, and recent changes to medical malpractice venue rules adding further complexity. In this environment, our professional liability attorneys partner closely with clients to drive favorable outcomes through early resolution strategies, targeted ADR approaches, rigorous damages analysis, and, when necessary, a vigorous and highly skilled trial defense.

The winners in the finalist categories will be announced at an awards dinner set for June 11, 2026 at the Hilton at Penn’s Landing in Philadelphia. More information may be found here: https://www.event.law.com/thelegalintelligencer-palegalawards/10375358.

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.