Marshall Dennehey's Professional Liability Department delivers powerful, results‑driven defense representation for clients spanning all areas of professional liability representation. Supported by a robust team of seasoned litigators across 19 strategically located offices, we offer the scale, experience, and agility to take on cases of any size or complexity. Clients trust us for our responsiveness, our exceptional insight, and our unwavering commitment to protecting their interests before and if necessary, at every stage of litigation.
Our Professional Liability Department consists of over 20 distinct areas of law, showcasing the strength and sophistication of our capabilities. We represent the full range of non‑medical professionals, including lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers, licensed agents, broker‑dealers and any miscellaneous profession typically covered by a professional liability policy. In addition to our traditional practice defending errors and omissions claims against licensed professionals, Marshall Dennehey’s Professional Liability Department includes practice groups, dedicated to Employment/ Management Liability, Public Entity/ Civil Rights, School Leaders/ Educational Institutions, Cyber/Data-Security/Incidence Response, Appellate Advocacy and all aspects of Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation.
Our attorneys are known for their skill in navigating politically sensitive, high‑stakes, and technically demanding cases. Clients benefit not only from our trial‑tested defense capabilities but also from our years of specific subject matter expertise that allow us to efficiently render sound prelitigation advice and consultation services in order to mitigate risk and avoid litigation.
Together, these integrated capabilities allow us to deliver comprehensive, forward‑thinking representation that protects our clients’ interests and positions them for long‑term success.
Professional Liability Practices
Accountants’ Professional Liability
Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice
Architectural, Engineering & Construction Defect Litigation
Cannabis Law
Class Action Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Consumer Financial Services Litigation
Disciplinary Board Representation
Employment Law
First-Party Property
Insurance Agents & Brokers Liability
Insurance Services – Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation
Intellectual Property, Technology & Media Litigation
Lawyers' Professional Liability
Miscellaneous Professional Liability
Non-Profit D&O
Privacy & Data Security
Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation
Real Estate E&O Liability
School Leaders' Liability
Securities & Investments Professional Liability
White-Collar Crime
Results
Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute
Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.
Successful Defense of High‑Profile Condo Board Election Challenge as Court Dismisses Claims With Prejudice
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability
Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm
July 29, 2026
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.
Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability
Delaware Superior Court Clarifies Pleading Standard for Legal Malpractice Claims
July 29, 2026
In the matter of Edelstein v. Kirschner, No. N25C-09-018 FJJ, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 45, at *1 (Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2026), the plaintiff law firm sued its former client for unpaid legal fees in the amount of $4,399.35. The former client asserted a counterclaim alleging legal malpractice. More, specifically, the former client claimed that his lawyer committed malpractice be recommending that he settle an underlying lawsuit by entering into a stipulated judgment for an excessive amount with interest that was accruing at “an outlandish” interest rate. The law firm moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that its former client had not alleged facts reflecting that he could prove the case within the case. That is, facts reflecting that his attorneys caused him to lose the underlying case. The Superior Court held that while a legal malpractice plaintiff in cases arising from underlying litigation must prove the case within the case to survive a summary judgment motion, he does not need to plead facts reflecting as much in order to survive a motion to dismiss. While this case addresses the pleading requirements of a legal malpractice case in Delaware, it also serves as reminder that chasing unpaid legal fees from a former client can often give rise to a legal malpractice counterclaim. Attorneys seeking to collect unpaid legal fees should ensure that the fees they seek are for a significant amount, which would be recoverable if a judgment is obtained. Otherwise, the effort could backfire.
