.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – January 2026

January 1, 2026

Alesia S. Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) was appointed to the Professional Liability Defense Federation (PLDF) board of directors, for a three-year term, at the organization’s annual meeting.

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented at the Philadelphia Bar Association’s 2025 Bench-Bar & Annual Conference. Josh joined Marie C. Dooley, member of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, to present “Pennsylvania’s Attorney Disciplinary Process and Our Changing World.” The session reviewed the attorney discipline process in Pennsylvania with a particular emphasis on how it has changed over the last year with significant opinions from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The duo also examined potential ethical/disciplinary issues related to changes to the environment for attorneys since the new administration took office.

Josh Byrne also presented for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. “Succession Planning for Law Firms and Lawyers 2025,” focused on helping attorneys and firms build continuity, retain key client relationships, and develop the next generation of leaders.

Matthew Flanagan (New York, NY/Melville, NY), a member of our Lawyers’ Professional Liability and Disciplinary Board Representation Practice Groups, has once again been selected to the 2025 edition of New York Metro Super Lawyers magazine in the area of Professional Liability, Litigation. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html.

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) was among 11 attorneys honored by the New Jersey Judiciary for their pro bono service. Acting Administrative Director Michael J. Blee said, “Pro-bono work is a sacred obligation for all attorneys, and an essential part of being an upstanding member of our legal community. Without the services of attorneys working pro-bono, our justice system could not function.”

Jack Slimm also participated in the New Jersey State Bar Association’s CLE 2025 Trial Bootcamp: Master the Art of Trial Advocacy. Jack was moderator and lecturer of "Selecting the Jury," along with the Honorable Christine P. O’Hearn, U.S.D.J. and Dennis J. Drasco, Esq.

Legal Update 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

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.