.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – RESULTS* & THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – September 2024

September 1, 2024

Lawyers’ Professional Liability RESULTS*

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA):

  • Josh’s client did not timely respond to the IOLTA Board’s inquiry about an accidental overdraw of the attorney’s IOLTA account because he was out of the office sick and did not receive the correspondence until after a response deadline had passed. Josh achieved a dismissal of a disciplinary complaint against his client.
  • Josh received dismissal of a disciplinary complaint made in a matter where the judge’s opinion asserted the client’s filings that sought to remove a guardian were frivolous. The response to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s 50-plus paragraph request for a statement of position was more than 23 single-spaced pages and included more than 30 exhibits. 
  • Josh received a complete finding for the defense in an arbitration of a Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings (Dragonetti) claim.

Matthew Flanagan (New York, NY and Long Island, NY) 

  • Matt successfully defended an attorney from malpractice claims stemming from a missed court appearance which resulted in a default. Matt filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to allege the outcome of the underlying proceeding would have been different but for the attorney’s alleged malpractice. He also argued that the damages which the plaintiff sought—including emotion distress and pain and suffering—are not recoverable under New York law in a legal malpractice action. 

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

 

 

Lawyers’ Professional Liability THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

  • September 10 – Matthew Flanagan (New York, NY and Long Island, NY) was one of the guest speakers at the New York State Bar Association’s statewide “Risk Management for Lawyers” webinar. The issues he addressed included the joint and several liability of attorneys for malpractice under New York law; intra-firm relationships of attorneys; the supervisory obligations of lawyers under the Rules of Professional Conduct; and file retention requirements for attorneys under New York law. 
  • August 21 – Yaël Dadoun (Harrisburg, PA) presented “Professional Liability Issues Attorneys, How to Avoid Malpractice and Disciplinary Board Issues,” to the Dauphin County Bar Association on behalf of the Pennsylvania Bar Association. 
  • August 20 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) was a panelist on the presentation of a CLE sponsored by the Family Law Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association on legal malpractice and ethics issues facing family law practitioners.
  • August 5 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) was a panelist for the Philadelphia Bar Association’s live webcast “Suicide Prevention and the 302 Process: Training for Family Law Practitioners.” Hosted by the Family Law Section, this program was designed to equip family law practitioners with essential knowledge and tools to navigate the delicate intersection of mental health crises and domestic relations legal proceedings. Panelists concentrated on Suicide Prevention and the 302 Process, addressing mental health intervention and legal considerations in the family law context. This program also examined how to handle ethical considerations, such as confidentiality, when a client may be at risk for self-harm. 
  • July 24 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Disciplinary and Reinstatement Cases You Should Know” at the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s training for new hearing committee members. The presentation focused on the disciplinary process from the perspective of respondent’s counsel. 
  • July 22 – As Co-Chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Amicus Curie Brief Committee, Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) was the primary author of an amicus brief submitted in the matter of Commonwealth v. Stevenson, which urged the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to reject the “Ohler doctrine.” The Ohler doctrine holds that a defendant who is unsuccessful in persuading a trial court to exclude evidence of a prior conviction in the context of a motion in limine and then preemptively introduces that evidence cannot claim on appeal that the trial court’s admissibility ruling was in error. The Pennsylvania Bar Association, along with several other amici, urged the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to reject the Ohler doctrine. By unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed and reversed the Superior Court decision and remanded the matter with appropriate instructions. As the Bar Association’s brief noted, this ruling has significant implications for all litigators, including those in civil practice. 
  • July 18 – InsuranceLawGlobal.com published Alesia Sulock’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “The Assessment of Professional Liability Claims in the U.S.” You can read Alesia’s article here
  • July 15 – The Legal Intelligencer published “‘But I Could Have Gotten More!’—Damages Speculation in Legal Malpractice Cases” by Alesia Sulock and Josh J.T. Byrne (both of Philadelphia, PA). You can read their article here
  • July 11 – Gregory Graham (Pittsburgh, PA) presented a CLE on the topic “AI’s Role in Changing the Defense Litigation Landscape of the Future” on behalf of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI). Greg serves as statewide Co-Chair of PDI’s Professional Liability Committee.

 


 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – September 2024 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 © 2024 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.