.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability - RESULTS & THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – January 2023

January 1, 2023

RESULTS *

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) defeated a motion for emergency preliminary injunction in a legal malpractice claim in Dauphin County and succeeded in getting his client paid attorneys’ fees owed that were in excess of six figures.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) achieved dismissal of a disciplinary complaint involving claims that an attorney did not communicate with a criminal client assigned to him by the court.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) achieved dismissal of a disciplinary complaint involving claims that a former prosecutor was involved in attaining a wrongful conviction in a murder case.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) achieved dismissal of a disciplinary complaint where an attorney was accused of not properly communicating with her client in an estate matter and violating Rule 1.15 with respect to estate funds.

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel) were successful at trial in the New Jersey Superior Court on behalf of their client, a New York law firm. In this case, the plaintiff, after receiving legal invoices from our client, filed a legal malpractice complaint alleging fraudulent billing. At trial, the legal malpractice claims against our client were dismissed, leaving the fee claim we asserted in the counterclaim to be decided by the jury. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of our client for the full amount of the invoices owed to the Firm, $244,759.59. This victory is significant since, pursuant to the contract the plaintiff entered into with our client, the judgment on the counterclaim will total to approximately $500,000.00 in interest and attorneys’ fees. 

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel) were successful in obtaining a dismissal of an ethics grievance against their client, a matrimonial attorney. The ethics grievance alleged that money in the grievant’s trust account was improperly handled since the ledger cards were completed incorrectly. Upon interviewing our client, the ethics investigator determined that no ethical violation was present since the money at issue was fully accounted for in the Trust account, despite the allegations by the grievant.

Edwin Schwartz (Harrisburg) obtained dismissal of Disciplinary Board complaints on matters alleging violations of RPC 1.3, 1.6, 1.7, 3.2 and 8.4. Ed also successfully defended a surcharge claim in Orphans Court.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
 

 

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) co-authored “Settle and Sue Your Lawyer: The Muhammad Doctrine Under Fire,” which was published in the January 2023 issue of Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/settle-and-sue-your-lawyer-muhammad-doctrine-under-fire. 

Dana Gittleman’s (Philadelphia) article “Discovery Rule Still Rules in Legal Malpractice Actions” was published on January 12, 2023, by PLUS. You can read the article here: https://plusblog.org/2023/01/12/discovery-rule-still-rules-in-legal-malpractice-actions/

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) has been appointed to the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association. He will serve a three-year term, effective January 1, 2023. Byrne also co-chairs the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility Committee.

Josh Byrne’s (Philadelphia) article “What Is Worse Than Hiding Your Head in the Sand? A Few Examples” was published in The Legal Intelligencer on November 18, 2022. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/what-worse-hiding-your-head-sand-few-examples.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) participated in PBI’s three-hour “Essential Ethics” program presenting on the disciplinary process in Pennsylvania.

Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel) was a panelist at the Rutgers’ School of Law’s Professionalism Seminar. This seminar is offered twice a year, and Jeremy is a recurring panelist. He discussed the defense of ethics grievances and the RPCs in the state of New Jersey. The audience included first year law students learning about the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the panel included a federal judge and an attorney from the Public Defender’s Office. Jeremy discussed the importance of the Rules of Professional Conduct in daily practice as well as applications of the Rules of Professional Conduct in practical examples.
 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

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.