.

Michael A. Bayron

Portrait of Michael A. Bayron

Michael A. Bayron is an accomplished attorney whose practice focuses on defending clients in matters involving premises and retail liability, New York Labor Law, amusement, sports and recreation, automobile liability, and general liability. He brings more than a decade of litigation experience to his work, representing clients across a wide range of industries and complex claims.

Before joining Marshall Dennehey, Michael served as a senior associate at a large New York insurance defense firm where he managed a high-volume caseload of catastrophic injury and Labor Law matters. He was actively involved in all stages of litigation, from document discovery and depositions to dispositive motions, appeals, and settlement negotiations. Earlier in his career, he practiced at mid-sized insurance defense firms where he handled cases involving premises liability, sports and recreation, motor vehicle accidents, and medical malpractice. He also served as an appellate attorney, prosecuting and defending appeals for the general liability and medical malpractice teams.

Michael began his career at a mid-sized firm where he defended healthcare professionals and medical institutions in complex medical malpractice litigation. Most recently, he expanded his expertise beyond the courtroom as Director of Risk Management for a community-based teaching hospital, overseeing patient safety, claims management, and risk mitigation across multiple facilities. This unique blend of litigation and risk management experience gives him a practical, strategic perspective in defending clients and advising on liability exposure.

Michael earned his J.D. from the University of Baltimore School of Law and his B.A. in English Literature from Binghamton University. He is admitted to practice in New York State, as well as the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

    • University of Baltimore School of Law (J.D., 2013)
    • State University of New York at Binghamton (B.A., 2010)
    • New York, 2014
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York
    • New York Super Lawyers Rising Star (2021-2024)
    • New York State Bar Association

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.