Professional Liability

Jillian won summary judgment in favor of her client, a former suburban mayor, after seven years of protracted litigation, arising out of alleged defamation.  In 2016, Jillian’s client was arrested for domestic violence.  Although the criminal case was ultimately dismissed, the charge significantly tarnished her personal life and career and she lost re-election.  In 2017, the police chief and a lieutenant that led the investigation into the criminal charge left their positions, allegedly forced out by the mayor.  Documents regarding the sealed criminal charges were found in both offices, which spurred an internal investigation and review by an outside prosecutor.  The internal investigation found that there were significant deficiencies in the criminal investigation and found that the officers likely obstructed justice as a result of these deficiencies.  The outside prosecutor found that, although there was probable cause for an arrest, there likely was not enough evidence for a conviction.  Because of the ongoing election, the criminal charges and internal investigation were the subject of several public records requests by the local police union as well as council members. On the eve of releasing the investigation as a public record, the acting chief of police, allegedly at the behest of the mayor, gave a press conference in which he announced the results of the investigation and the possible related criminal charges.  The acting chief of police stated that the press conference was necessary because of the political situation – likely referring to the mayor’s reelection campaign.  The court dismissed the action at summary judgment on both procedural grounds and on the merits finding that none of the comments made in the press conference were false or disparaging.

We won summary judgment for a former suburban mayor after seven years of litigation. As background, in 2016, our client was arrested for domestic violence, but the criminal case was ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence and sealed. In 2017, after the police chief and lieutenant left their positions, the City found documents regarding the sealed charges against the mayor in their offices. This spurred an internal investigation into the police investigation into the mayor, which found that there were significant deficiencies in the criminal investigation. The outside prosecutor found that, although there was probable cause for an arrest, there likely was not enough evidence for a conviction. As a result of the ongoing mayoral campaign at that time, the criminal charges and internal investigation were the subject of several public records requests. On the eve of releasing those public records, the City held a press conference announcing that the former police chief’s and lieutenant’s investigation into our client was improper and possibly criminal. After the press conference, the police chief and lieutenant sued the mayor, the acting police chief, and the City for defamation and related claims. The court dismissed the action at summary judgment on both procedural grounds and on the merits, finding that none of the comments made in the press conference were false or disparaging.

We obtained summary judgment in a Sunshine Act case in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff alleged that the school district violated the law by temporarily requiring school board meeting attendees to show photo identification to gain entry without holding a public vote prior to implementation of the measure. The court determined that this security measure did not constitute a policy requiring a public vote and that the plaintiff was not prevented from attending school board meetings because he possessed a valid driver’s license and chose not to produce it.

We won a decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, which affirmed an order for summary judgment in a complex multi-party legal malpractice action. This case involved financial ventures that led to two legal malpractice actions. The dismissal was affirmed, with the Appellate Division agreeing with the trial judge that the plaintiff’s expert reports were net opinions and inadmissible.

We obtained a “no cause” verdict in an employment discrimination case for a New Jersey state university. The plaintiff, seeking back pay, front pay, emotional distress, attorney fees, punitive damages and costs, alleged she was terminated from her position as director of the university’s performing arts center due to her age, gender and/or in retaliation for reporting internal complaints of age/gender discrimination. We successfully argued that the plaintiff was not terminated for discriminatory/retaliatory reasons but, instead, was terminated as a result of mandatory COVID-19 closures necessitated by Executive Orders. 

We secured a victory in a case involving an Article 75 petition seeking to vacate a master arbitration award. Following oral arguments, the court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision as neither the lower arbitration award nor the master arbitration award were neither irrational nor contained errors of law or fact.

We secured summary judgment and dismissal of nine claims brought by an individual employer against two former employees and their new place of employment. The plaintiff, who owned an insurance business and a tax preparation business, alleged claims of breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, tortious interference, violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and other related claims against two former employees, one at-will and one independent contractor, and their new employer. The plaintiff was imprisoned for violations of insurance fraud and barred from continued participation in the business of insurance. While imprisoned, one defendant, an at-will insurance underwriter employee, sent a letter to the business’s customers informing them that the plaintiff was no longer legally allowed to participate in the business of insurance. The plaintiff also alleged that the other defendant misappropriated trade secret information by taking a customer list with him to his new employer. We argued that the plaintiff lacked a trade secret interest over the customer list, and that all remaining claims should be dismissed because the statements made in the insurance employee’s letter were truthful. The trial judge agreed and dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims against the three defendants, with prejudice.

We obtained summary judgment in a First Amendment retaliation claim where the plaintiff, an employee of the Borough, alleged that she was terminated by the president because of her affiliation with the minority of the supervisors. In granting summary judgment, the court found that the statements of one council member cannot constitute a policy of the council, unless she is delegated authority by the entire board. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the individual board member, as she did not have the authority to fire the plaintiff without approval from the majority of the board.

We successfully defended an appeal in a complex series of legal malpractice actions arising out of an $11 million investment in an illegal venture in Brazil. In the initial trial, the plaintiff’s economic loss expert had offered a net opinion in connection with what plaintiff would have earned from the illegal venture in Brazil. We established the plaintiff’s knowledge of that illegality, which had been demonstrated in the previous legal malpractice action. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s expert report was barred in the first legal malpractice action, the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order, which barred the expert report in the second legal malpractice action. In addition, the court found that profits derived from the illegal venture are worthless and cannot form the basis for a claim.

We obtained summary judgment, dismissal and an award of attorneys’ fees for a condominium association. Judgment was entered in favor of our client against the plaintiff in an earlier action that sought unpaid assessments. In order to sell its property, the plaintiff sent the association a check in the amount of recorded liens. The association returned the check, demanding the full payoff amount, and claimed a statutory lien for all amounts owed. The plaintiff paid the full amount and then filed its complaint, seeking a declaration from the court that the association should have satisfied a lien for the recorded amount even though additional amounts were owed under a statutory lien. The court found that the statutory liens which applied to the property created both in rem and in personam liability and, therefore, the association had no legal obligation to mark the lien as satisfied until it was fully paid. The court awarded our client’s attorneys’ fees for the plaintiff’s failure to appeal the lower court’s decision awarding the initial judgment and attorneys’ fees and, instead, bringing an additional action, which resulted in further delay and expenditure of additional sums by the association.

We won a complex legal malpractice trial in Burlington County, New Jersey. The case arose out of underlying breach of employment cases where the plaintiff claimed his employer shorted him on amounts due for his salary and an electrical property. Based on the net opinions of the plaintiff’s expert, the court dismissed the legal malpractice claims during trial, and the jury awarded our client fees and costs, with interest.

We secured summary judgment on behalf of a school district in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged he sustained a concussion as a result of a fall from a loading dock when making a delivery to a middle school in the school district. He argued that the loading dock was dangerous due to inappropriate depth, causing boxes on his hand truck to strike a wall, thus pushing him off of the loading dock. The court concluded that, because of the plaintiff’s prior uneventful encounters with the loading dock, the plaintiff was aware of the intricacies of the loading dock. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiff was an experienced delivery driver who, as indicated, was in the best position to perceive whether conditions were dangerous or not, and was, thus, in the best position to take appropriate precautions for his safety. Therefore, the court held that the defendants had no duty to warn or otherwise act to protect the plaintiff.

We obtained a defense jury verdict in a legal malpractice action arising from two wrongful termination trials. This matter included the two trials, an appeal, in addition to involving aspects of intellectual property law. There we numerous evidence issues as a result of the two underlying trials. However, we were successful on pretrial hearing in limiting plaintiff’s proofs and in barring significant damages claims asserted by the plaintiff’s expert. The jury rejected these claims and awarded all of our client’s fees, with interest and costs.

We were affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of our client in a high-speed police pursuit case. The plaintiff was severely injured after a brief police pursuit involving the driver, who died as a result of the pursuit. The plaintiff then sued the local municipality for negligence, arguing that the officers caused the wreck by turning a traffic stop into a high-speed chase. Following discovery, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Township, finding that the so-called vehicle exception to municipal liability found in the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act did not apply. The trial court reasoned that pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Sellers v. The Township of Abington, 106 A. 3d 679 (Pa. 2014), the defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care because his existence or connection to the driver were unknown to the officers at the time of the pursuit. The Commonwealth Court issued an opinion affirming the trial court and held that the exception to the exception for vehicle liability involving high-speed police pursuits did not apply because the plaintiff was unable to establish the threshold requirement that the defendants owed him a duty of care.

We won a defense verdict for a financial advisor in a FINRA arbitration over claims of unauthorized trading and breach of fiduciary duty. Defense award in a binding FINRA arbitration in Columbus, Ohio on behalf of a financial advisor. The Claimant alleged unauthorized trading and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with individual stock trades. The Claimant further alleged breach of fiduciary duty in relation to the financial advisor’s recommendation that the account be changed from a commission based to an advisory fee-based account.

We obtained a dismissal with prejudice in an action based on an alleged violation of contract, constitutional challenge of a Florida statute, and enforcement of a third-party settlement agreement. We represented an international nonprofit private membership organization in an action by a former member for violation of his membership in said organization. The plaintiff attempted to use a settlement agreement from a prior case to show that he was in compliance with the organization’s membership requirements. He also argued that the requirement to be a member of an underlying organization was unconstitutional because of an antiquated Florida law. We argued that a settlement agreement could not be enforced against a third party with no connection to a settlement agreement, in addition to pointing out the plaintiff’s failure to follow procedural requirements. Agreeing with our arguments, the judge ruled from the bench after oral arguments, dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to state a breach of contract and failure to state a cause of action under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

We secured a unanimous, precedential decision upholding a venue transfer from Philadelphia to Butler County under forum non conveniens, setting a new standard for defendants after a series of appellate reversals.

We prevailed on a motion to dismiss a hazing lawsuit filed against a school district. The plaintiff, who was a member of his high school football team, alleged he was subject to hazing and physical abuse by several other members of the team while attending a dinner at the home of one of his teammates. The plaintiff claimed that the school district had been aware of the hazing, but failed to prevent it. He asserted claims against the school under Title IX for emotional distress damages and punitive damages. The court eventually agreed with our arguments that emotional distress and punitive damages are nor recoverable under Title IX, and that all other claims were barred by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

We prevailed in a unanimous, precedential decision in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which reconciled conflicting case law in the state. The plaintiffs were joined by 55 amici, and our client was joined by numerous construction organizations as amici. The court eventually applied Pennsylvania’s statute of repose to bar construction defect claims brought by homeowners.

We obtained a dismissal of plaintiff’s legal and accounting malpractice claims, in which the plaintiff claimed a prior unrelated legal settlement led to an avoidable tax liability. The plaintiff alleged that our attorney client was negligent in providing legal and accounting advice in regard to corrective tax filings following a legal settlement with a state entity. After multiple rounds of amended pleadings and briefing, the court entered an order adopting our lack of subject matter jurisdiction argument and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaints based upon a Rule 8 violation. 

We obtained a summary judgment on behalf of our architectural client against one of the top construction/design defect law firms in New Jersey. After three separate argument appearances, the court granted summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff’s expert’s report failed to substantively establish a deviation from the architectural standard of care.

A FINRA arbitration panel recommended the expungement of a customer complaint from a financial advisor’s public record.  The complaint involved allegedly unsuitable alternative investments and an overconcentration of alternative investments in the customer’s portfolio.

We secured a defense verdict in a Section 1983 malicious prosecution trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged that our client’s law enforcement officers falsified evidence and testimony in order to maliciously prosecute him for conspiracy for engaging in the illegal sale of narcotics. We successfully contended that the former narcotics detective, who corroborated the plaintiff’s complaint, was lying, and called various members of our client’s narcotics unit to testify about the facts of the investigation.

We secured summary judgment in a Fourth Amendment civil rights claim involving an unlawful search and seizure. The plaintiff, a former social worker employed by a school district, alleged that the assistant superintendent and Right to Know Law officer conducted an illegal search of her work space, who then produced these records to the plaintiff’s estranged husband, with whom she was in the midst of a contentious divorce. The court agreed that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to show that either the assistant superintendent or the Right to Know Law officer actually searched her filing cabinet or seized her personal property. All claims, including those under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Rehabilitation Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, were previously dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion.

We achieved a defense jury verdict in a 4th Amendment civil rights trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged that two officers of our Northeastern Pennsylvania Police Department client used excessive force to transfer him from the police station’s processing room to a holding cell. We argued that the officers’ actions were reasonable under the circumstances because they were brief in duration, used techniques within the officers’ training, caused no injury to the plaintiff, and only occurred after the plaintiff repeatedly refused to walk to the holding cell on his own power. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in our client’s favor after approximately an hour of deliberation. 

We obtained summary judgment in an employment litigation case involving claims of racial and sex-based discrimination. The plaintiff alleged that she experienced a hostile work environment based solely on her race. We were able to prove that there was no evidence to substantiate these claims.

We were granted summary judgment in a $1.3 million construction defect subrogation case involving allegedly improperly sealed roof openings. The subcontractor contested its liability on the theory that our client chose the sealing method, and that the contract itself was deficient. Our motion, that was eventually granted, successfully argued that the contract language met the standard set in Pennsylvania’s Perry-Ruzzi rule.

We obtained a defense verdict in a Fourth Amendment civil rights trial before Judge Michael Baylson in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged that a public agency violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching and seizing his personal property after his vehicle was impounded. The defense witnesses each testified that the vehicle was never searched by the public agency and that the public agency does not have a policy or custom of searching vehicles once they are impounded, which was an essential element of plaintiff’s constitutional violation claim. After less than 15 minutes of deliberation, the jury unanimously found that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the public agency violated his constitutional rights, granting judgment in favor of the public agency defendant.  

We secured summary judgment in a four-year-old federal copyright matter filed against a national publication for elementary school principals. The plaintiff alleged that her work was improperly published because it was plagiarized. Through discovery, we were able to prove that this article was authored outside of the three-year statute of limitations.

In a unanimous precedential opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with our attorneys that a law enforcement officer’s attempted arrest of the plaintiff did not constitute an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Our client was instructed by a neighboring police department to hold a burglary suspect who was subject to a search warrant, but not an arrest warrant. After the officer tried to detain the suspect, he fled, and a fight ensued. While the district court held that the officer’s initial attempt to detain the plaintiff was an unlawful seizure, the Third Circuit accepted our reasoning that no seizure occurred because the plaintiff never submitted to the officer.