.

Olivia R. O'Reilly

Portrait of Olivia R. O'Reilly

Olivia is an associate in the firm’s Casualty Department, where she focuses her practice on defending premises liability and personal injury matters, including workplace and construction accidents, motor vehicle accident cases, and slip and falls. 

Olivia received her Bachelor of Science from Saint Joseph’s University, majoring in Sociology and triple-minoring in Chinese Language and Culture, Asian Studies and Faith Justice. After graduation, she bartended while studying for the LSAT. Before starting law school, at Drexel University, she worked at Donohue, O’Connell and Riley, which specializes in Trust and Estates and Elder Law. 

During her time at Drexel University, Olivia participated in the Marshall Brennan Constitutional Literacy Program where she taught Constitutional Law at Constitution High School and prepared two students for a moot court competition on the 4th Amendment. In addition to Marshall Brennan, Olivia did pro bono work with The Campaign for Working Families where she helped clients prepare and file their taxes. Finally, while at Drexel, Olivia spent three semesters working with the Federal Litigation and Appeals Clinic, which focuses on Immigration Law. At the time of her graduation from Drexel’s Law School, Olivia was awarded the Faculty Award for Outstanding Achievements in Experiential Education. 

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey as a summer law clerk in June of 2023, Olivia was a student law clerk for the Honorable Judge Rolf M. Thorsen of the Supreme Court of New York, where she performed research assignments and drafted memorandum opinions on a number of civil cases. 

    • Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law (J.D., 2024)
    • Saint Joseph's University (B.S., 2020)
    • Pennsylvania, 2024

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.