.
Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – RESULTS

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – January 2026

January 1, 2026

Carol VanderWoude (Philadelphia, PA) and Aaron Moore (Wilmington, DE) secured a Delaware Supreme Court affirmance of the dismissal of a complex legal malpractice claim. The plaintiffs—seven affiliated property development companies and their owners—had been sued by their bank for defaulting on multiple credit lines totaling about $7 million plus attorneys’ fees. Our client defended those suits, which ultimately settled for the full amount owed, plus interest and fees. The plaintiffs later alleged malpractice, claiming our client should have advised an earlier settlement to avoid legal fees, expert costs, additional interest, and lost business opportunities. The trial court dismissed the claims because the plaintiffs’ expert lacked relevant experience and their damages were speculative, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Aaron Moore (Wilmington, DE) obtained dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim brought by a condominium unit owner against the attorneys who represented her condominium association. The unit owner claimed that the law firm was liable to her for unjust enrichment in connection with legal fees it received from the association for legal services provided in their efforts to collect on past due assessments owed by the unit owner. Pursuant to the association’s governing documents, the charges were passed on to the unit owner. The court agreed that the fees paid to our client by the condominium association were properly earned.

Michael Jacobson (New York, NY) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice suit that also alleged breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and a Judiciary Law § 487 violation. The plaintiff had retained our clients to pursue an employment discrimination claim, which was compelled to arbitration and ultimately rejected after a four-day hearing. We argued the malpractice complaint lacked allegations of negligence and causation, the additional claims were duplicative, and § 487 does not apply to arbitration. The court agreed and dismissed all claims.

Maria Nudelman and Michael Jacobson (both of New York, NY) were successful in having their motion to dismiss granted in a legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Our client represented the plaintiffs in an underlying landlord-tenant proceeding commenced against them by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York (HPD). The plaintiffs allegedly failed to correct over 20 Building Code violations. Our client was retained by the managing agent of the buildings and appeared as counsel and executed a Consent Order on behalf of all the respondents proceeding, including the plaintiffs. The Consent Order gave the plaintiffs and the other respondents until June 30, 2021, to pay $37,500 to HPD, and if they failed to make the payment, a judgment for that amount could be entered against them. The plaintiffs claimed that they never knew about the Consent Order and as a result, a $375,000 judgment was entered against them. We moved to dismiss, arguing that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was simply duplicative of the malpractice claim and should also be dismissed. The court agreed and dismissed both counts.

Diane Toner and Matthew Flanagan (both of New York, NY) were successful in defending an appeal from the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict following unanimous jury verdict in favor of our clients. The plaintiff, Hyon S. Yi, as administrator of the Estate of Chin W. Yi, commenced this action against our clients alleging causes of action for legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and a violation of Judiciary Law § 487. The plaintiff alleged that our clients committed legal malpractice by: (1) failing to assert claims in the underlying action; (2) changing the terms of the retainer agreement to a contingency agreement after discovering that settlement of the underlying action was imminent; (3) failing to assert direct shareholder claims against the corporate defendant in the underlying action; (4) failing to assert fiduciary duty claims against the majority shareholders of the corporate defendant; (5) failing to seek a receivership or attach the assets of Eastern Farms; (6) and failing to demand prejudgment interest in the second underlying action brought in 2015. The jury found in favor of our clients on all counts. Diane Toner was able to secure dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal by arguing that the order denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict was an intermediate order from which there was no right of direct appeal once the final judgment was entered, and that plaintiff did not appeal from the final judgment. The Appellate Division agreed and dismissed the appeal.

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully defended an attorney who specializes in the representation of school boards in a grievance before the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE). The grievance was filed by a plaintiff’s attorney, who argued that our client violated the rules of professional conduct in connection with his arguments to the court at the trial level and on appeal. The OAE rejected the grievance, finding that the allegations of racist and misogynistic behavior by defense counsel were unfounded, that the attorney did not disrespect the court either at trial or on appeal, that the attorney did not lie about the defendant’s defenses, and did not make any false statements of fact in response to the plaintiff’s grievance. 

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) won a motion to dismiss a complaint with prejudice in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a legal malpractice action stemming out of the criminal investigation into Nicole Daedone and her “orgasmic meditation” company OneTaste.

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) achieved a dismissal of a complaint alleging abuse of process on preliminary objections in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The complaint alleged the defendant attorney abused process by filing a meritless complaint that contained false allegations for the purpose of “extorting” the insurance company and earning a fee. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s claim failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, stating that the primary focus of the plaintiff’s averments were not on alleged abuse of process after it was initiated, but on the alleged ill intentions in initiating the process in the first place. The court noted that the plaintiff had not and could not state a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings because the plaintiff settled the underlying action and, therefore, could not allege a favorable termination. 

Scott Eberle and Gregory Graham (both of Pittsburgh, PA) obtained a damage-limiting ruling on a motion to dismiss in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The case involved defamation per se allegations against our client, a local public broadcasting organization, that were claimed to have resulted in over $30 million in business losses. Via motion to dismiss, Scott and Greg were able to successfully argue that the claim had to be limited in time to a narrow window, thus limiting the plaintiffs’ ability to recover the extensive damages they sought.

Gregory Graham (Pittsburgh, PA) achieved a summary judgment dismissal in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The case involved claims of legal malpractice arising from divorce proceedings. 

Nicholas Chrysanthem (New York, NY) obtained summary judgment in a legal malpractice case that arose from an underlying real estate deal that fell apart. The plaintiff claimed that our client failed to properly cancel a real estate contract and alleged the loss of a $175,000 security deposit and unspecified loss of opportunity income. The court initially dismissed the duplicative breach of fiduciary cause of action and the negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action on our pre-answer motion to dismiss. After the conclusion of discovery on the malpractice cause of action, the court granted summary judgment to our client. 

Nick also obtained pre-answer dismissal of a legal malpractice case against our client who was sued for legal malpractice because his associate neglected to oppose a threshold motion in the underlying auto case. The underlying court granted that threshold motion, in part, and denied it, in part. The plaintiff retained a new attorney without firing our client. The new attorney commenced a malpractice action against our client and refused to substitute as attorney of record in the underlying action. We moved to dismiss the case on a number of issues pre-answer, but primarily because the legal malpractice action was premature and the plaintiff could not prove that “but for” the failure to oppose the underlying threshold motion he would have been able to prove that he had a “serious injury” or actual damages. The court granted our motion to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint. 

Dante Rohr (Orlando, FL) recently secured dismissal of the latest in a series of filings brought by a former client against his attorneys alleging malpractice in the handling of his workers’ compensation and potential American with Disabilities Act claims. The first complaint, filed in state court, was stayed pending final disposition of the plaintiff’s claims in arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the parties’ Retainer Agreement. However, rather than bringing the action in arbitration as directed, the plaintiff refiled his complaint in federal court, adding a plethora of federal causes of action. We argued that none of the pled federal causes of action stated a cause of action under Rule 12(b)(6). The court agreed, dismissing all federal causes of action with prejudice. Because the remaining claims arose solely from state law, the court declined to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction over those claims. Back in state court, more than two years had passed since the entry of the order compelling the plaintiff to bring his claims in arbitration. Because the plaintiff failed to do so, the court dismissed the previously stayed action with prejudice.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – January 2026 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 © 2026 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 MEDeSatnick@mdwcg.com.
 

Firm Highlights

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.

Result

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.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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.