.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

June 26, 2026

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

Five attorneys from the Florida offices of Marshall Dennehey have been selected to the 2026 edition of Florida Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in each state are selected by Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the Florida Rising Stars list. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html.

Marshall Dennehey lawyers selected to the 2026 Florida Super Lawyers list include:

Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Construction Litigation. Ferguson, a Shareholder in the Jacksonville office, has been board certified in construction law by The Florida Bar since 2009. She defends clients against claims of liability, breach of contract, construction defect, design defect, delay, liens/bonds, insurance coverage issues, and licensure issues. She also provides transactional support for her construction clients.

Alan C. “A.C.” Nash, Civil Litigation Defense. Nash, a Shareholder in the Fort Lauderdale office and co-chair of the firm’s Premises and Retail Liability Practice Group, focuses his practice on the defense of claims made and suits brought against businesses, municipalities, and insureds in public entity and civil rights litigation, professional liability, premises liability, product liability, commercial litigation, and construction liability matters. Additionally, he serves as the Casualty Supervisor of the firm’s Fort Lauderdale office.

Marshall Dennehey lawyers selected to the 2026 Florida Rising Stars list include:

Taylor A. Naughton, Construction Litigation. Naughton, a Shareholder in the firm’s Jacksonville office, represents and defends contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, developers and design professionals when claims are made against them. He is also experienced in representing Florida automotive dealerships in general liability matters and business disputes.

Sophia E. D. Philor, Civil Litigation Defense. Philor, an Associate in the Fort Lauderdale office, focuses her practice on representing businesses, directors and officers, design professionals, contractors and homeowners' associations in commercial, professional liability, construction defect, architectural, engineering, and employment disputes.

Amara Benitez Rodriguez, Personal Injury – General Defense. Rodriguez, an Associate in the Tampa office, represents defendants in third-party insurance defense matters concerning negligence, automobile liability, premises liability, construction defect, personal injury, and defamation/libel. 
 

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.