.

Chairman, Board of Directors

Director, Casualty Department

Portrait of Matthew S. Schorr

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

June 22, 2026

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Veteran trial attorney Joseph M. Toddy has joined Marshall Dennehey’s Philadelphia Casualty Department, where he will focus on catastrophic claims, trucking and transportation, bad faith, and dram shop litigation.

“Joe has built an outstanding reputation as a highly skilled trial attorney and a respected leader in the Philadelphia legal community,” said Matthew S. Schorr, Director of Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department and Chairman of the firm’s Board of Directors. “His extensive courtroom experience and proven track record in defense matters will be an exceptional asset to our clients and our team.”

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Toddy was a named partner at Zarwin Baum Devito Kaplan Schaer Toddy, where he served as co-chair of the firm’s casualty department and its employment practice.

For more than 30 years, Toddy has represented clients in state and federal courts in complex casualty, trucking, and employment litigation matters. Over the course of his career, he has defended high-exposure cases involving commercial and personal transportation liability, general liability, premises liability, and product liability, trying more than 50 cases to verdict.

Among his professional activities, Toddy serves as national trial counsel for a leading asbestos manufacturer and a trucking company. He is a member of the Defense Research Institute, as well as the Philadelphia and New Jersey Associations of Defense Counsel.

Toddy has been recognized as a Pennsylvania and New Jersey Super Lawyer, and holds an AV Preeminent® rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating for ethical standards and professional ability.

He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Notre Dame, where he is a lifelong member of the Notre Dame Monogram Club, and his law degree from Widener University Commonwealth Law School. Toddy is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, as well as before the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
 

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.