.

Paul D. Krepps

Portrait of Paul D. Krepps

A significant amount of Paul’s practice is concentrated in the area of civil rights litigation. He defends police officers, public officials, corrections officers and administrators, teachers and school district administrators, children and youth case workers, as well as their respective municipal entities, in state and federal court in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. These areas of practice include representing clients before inquest and grand jury proceedings and before administrative proceedings.

Paul has been utilized to perform audits of municipal departments, such as police departments and 911 call centers, and has conducted internal investigations. He has also provided consultation to numerous municipalities regarding the operational aspects of their police departments. His nearly 10 years of experience in law enforcement provide him with a unique perspective, particularly in the numerous matters he has litigated involving the use of Tasers.

Additionally, Paul has litigated a wide array of professional liability and product liability cases in West Virginia, including the defense of real estate agents, insurance brokers, logging cases, correctional facilities and civil rights matters. Among his West Virginia cases was the defense of Weirton Steel Corporation and Wheeling Downs and the City of Huntington. Paul has also represented a number of private and public employers in employment matters.

Paul was designated as lead defense counsel for all suits arising out of the Pittsburgh “G-20.” In this role he successfully completed training provided by the Department of Homeland Security in both the Basic and Command courses in Managing Civil Actions and Threat Incidents (MCATI).

In 2015, Paul was commissioned by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to assist in developing a policy and training program on the use of Body Worn Cameras (BWC). As a member of the BWC Committee, Paul provides recommendations to members of the Pennsylvania legislature in drafting legislation to govern the use of BWCs by police officers.

In 1979 Paul earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Administration of Justice from the Pennsylvania State University. For nearly 12 years before attending the Duquesne University School of Law, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Paul was a police officer. He served in Elizabeth Township, Pennsylvania, and then in the cities of West Palm Beach and Palm Beach, Florida. He served as a uniform police officer and field training officer, became certified as a crime scene analyst, and was part of the Major Crimes Unit. Paul was recognized as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and the science of fingerprints in both state and federal courts in Florida.

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 1994)
    • The Pennsylvania State University (B.S., 1979)
    • Pennsylvania, 1994
    • West Virginia, 1995
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of West Virginia, 1998
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, 2016
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of West Virginia, 2017
    • Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • Municipal Police Officer Education and Training Commission (MPOETC)
    • Pennsylvania State Bar Association
    • West Virginia State Bar Association
    • Qualified Immunity and Its Significance in Civil Rights Cases, Pennsylvania Defense Institute 2022 Annual Conference & CLE Program, Bedford, Pennsylvania, July 14, 2022
    • Impact of Protection from Abuse Orders: A Case Study, Law Against Violence Continuing Legal Education Program, Allegheny County Bar Association, June 27, 2022
    • Litigation & Trial Considerations When Representing/Defending Law Enforcement, NAPO’s Annual 2021 Legal Seminar, West Palm Beach, FL, October 4, 2021
    • Hot Topics in 2020 Law Enforcement Liability, Client Webinar, December 2020
    • Mass Disturbances: Law and Litigation, Allegheny County Law Enforcement, March 2019
    • The Wrong Side of the Caption, 42 USC 1983 Turns the Tables on Prosecutors, Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association/Institute, July 2015
    • Hot Topics for Local Law Enforcement, Washington County Chiefs of Police Association, May 2015
    • Beyond Asking Questions at a Deposition, November 2014
    • Challenging §8553 - Tort Claims Act Damages Cap and Damages Recoverable Under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, September 2013
    • Employment Liability in the Cyber Age, Marshall Dennehey / AIG Employment Seminar, Pittsburgh, PA, May 2, 2013
    • Leadership Course for Law Enforcement Executives, Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, December 2011
    • Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, the Danger in Enforcing the Wiretap Act, Police Departments from Beaver, Allegheny and Butler Counties, August 2011
    • Liability Issues for Municipalities Hosting National Events: Including the Development of Security Plans, Training and Equipping Police Officers, and Executing Law Enforcement and Security Functions During These Complex Events, City of Honolulu, Hawaii, January 2010
    • Exposure in Education Cases Related to Due Process and Bullying, Client Seminar, August 2010
    • Assisted the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission, Pennsylvania State Police - preparation and training to training officers (2006, 2008)
    • Constitutional Litigation in the Current Political Climate, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, June 2008
    • Section 1983 Civil Rights, Continuing Legal Education, Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Law Enforcement Issues and Liability, Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors & Delaware Valley Insurance Trust, October 2008
    • Implications of Scott v. Harris on Police Pursuits and Beyond, Lorman Education Services
    • Development of a Critical Incident Protocol - City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, City of Pittsburgh Law Department, various Chiefs of Police Organizations
    • Effective Law Enforcement Through Police Accountability - City of Pittsburgh and various municipal law enforcement agencies
    • Police Rights and Liabilities - Various Chiefs of Police Organizations
    • Police Accountability - Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors and various police departments
    • Effective Witness Preparation - Continuing Legal Education for in-house lawyer training
    • Terrorism and An Analysis of the Events of 9/11 - American Inns of Court and University of Pittsburgh
    • Workplace Violence - Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh
    • Disability of Deriliction? - Claims Management Advisory Board Seminar for a major municipal insurance carrier
    • Litigating an Uninsured Auto Case in West Virginia - Maryland Auto Insurance Fund
    • Civil / Criminal Forfeiture and RICO - University of Pittsburgh
    • Police and Drug Enforcement - University of Pittsburgh
    • Immigration and Law Enforcement - University of Pittsburgh
    • Crime Scene Investigation - University of Pittsburgh and various law enforcement agencies
    • Property Crimes - University of Pittsburgh
    • Organized Crime; Asian and African American - University of Pittsburgh
    • Organized Crime; Russia - University of Pittsburgh
    • Community Consideration of Policing Immigrant Populations - University of Pittsburgh
    • Probation and Parole - St. Vincent College
    • Crime Prevention and Property Crimes - St. Vincent College
    • Introduction to Criminology - Beaver County Community College
    • "Close Judicial Scrutiny of Qualified Immunity And Municipal Liability In An Excess Use-Of-Force Death Case," Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2012
    • "Palsfraf Revisited - Brisbine v. Outside Inn School of Experiential Education," Defense Digest, Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2002 and Lawyer's Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, February 7, 2003
    • Selected as lead defense counsel for all litigation arising out of the Group of 20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Conference (G20), which occurred in Pittsburgh on September 24 and 25, 2009. In this capacity, Paul represented literally hundreds of police officers from police departments in Pittsburgh and numerous other cities throughout the United States in this litigation. Cases filed include numerous First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
    • Successfully defended a case in which two police officers Tasered a suicidal man a total of seven times before he could be disarmed. Summary judgment was granted as to the entire case.
    • Successfully defended two separate death cases brought under the State Created Danger Theory. In one case, brought in state court, the decedent left the scene of a minor traffic accident and, upon arriving home, committed suicide. In the other, filed in federal court, a police officer stopped a suspect leaving the scene of a domestic incident. Twenty minutes after leaving the scene of the traffic stop, the suspect died in a one-car accident. His blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit. Both suits were dismissed by way of summary judgment.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a corrections officer was accused of using excessive force to break up a fight between inmates.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a logger was accused of unlawful timbering practices.
    • Successful defense of a mandamus action against a sewer authority in which the authority was accused of imposing arbitrary standards for sewer hook-up in a case that had the potential of effecting 28,000 customers.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a dog track was accused of negligence in the deaths of racing dogs and in which the dog owners were permitted to present damages in the amount of $3.6 million.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a police officer was involved in a police pursuit which ended with the death of the individual being pursued and where the plaintiff, an innocent third party, suffered the loss of a leg and catastrophic brain injuries. This was the second defense verdict in this case, the first verdict rendered at the close of a summary jury trial.
    • A district court judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff's case in a matter in which a police officer accidentally shot and killed the plaintiff's decedent. The appeal of the dismissal was upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in which the court focused on whether a prima facie case existed against the municipality for failing to require its officers to carry less than lethal weapons.
    • Tonya L. Carswell, et ux. v. Borough of Homestead, et al, 381 F.3d 235 (3rd. Cir. 2004)
    • Certified I.A.I. Crime Scene Analyst
    • Florida State Certified Police Field Training Officer

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

SIU Gets a Boost: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Insurers' Right to Litigate, Not Arbitrate, Fraud Claims

In a significant win for insurers' Special Investigation Units, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that statutory insurance fraud and racketeering claims may proceed in court rather than through PIP arbitration. At issue was whether insurance fraud claims brought under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) and the state's Anti-Racketeering Act (NJ RICO) are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act’s (AICRA) PIP dispute-resolution framework. Allstate had sued a network of medical practices, physicians, and related corporate entities, alleging a scheme to extract more than $1.7 million in PIP benefits through fraudulent and misleading billing. The trial court dismissed Allstate's complaint and compelled arbitration, reading AICRA's arbitration clause — which covers "any dispute regarding the recovery of... benefits" under PIP coverage, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) — as sweeping in fraud and racketeering claims along with routine benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, adopting Judge Gilson's opinion below (480 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2025)) as its own reasoning. The Court held that IFPA and RICO claims fall outside the scope of AICRA's PIP arbitration mechanism because that "streamlined and specialized" process cannot grant the relief those statutes contemplate — treble damages, injunctive relief, broad discovery, and joinder of third parties — and because arbitrators lack authority to award compensatory or treble damages to an insurer. The Court also rejected the argument that Allstate's own Decision Point Review Plans independently compel arbitration, finding those plan provisions no broader than AICRA's own arbitration clause. Notably, the Court expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit's contrary holding in GEICO v. Mt. Prospect Chiropractic Center, 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024), concluding it is not bound by that federal interpretation of New Jersey law. Insurers retain the right to pursue IFPA and RICO claims in the Law Division, with a jury trial. For SIU units and NJ insurance carriers, this decision is a significant win: it forecloses defense clinics' primary procedural tool for shunting fraud investigations into limited-scope PIP arbitration, where treble damages, RICO relief, and meaningful discovery were never realistically available. Carriers building cases against fraudulently structured clinics, straw-owned practices, or coordinated billing networks can now proceed with confidence that a well-pleaded IFPA/RICO complaint stays in the Law Division rather than being diverted to arbitration on a motion to compel. Practically, this strengthens SIU's leverage in settlement negotiations, preserves civil discovery tools (subpoenas, depositions, joinder of related corporate entities) critical to unwinding complex ownership and referral schemes, and resolves the split with the Third Circuit in favor of NJ insurers — at least as a matter of state law. Expect increased reliance on IFPA civil actions, rather than PIP arbitration demands, as SIU's primary enforcement vehicle going forward.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.