.

Raymond J. Michaud

Portrait of Raymond J. Michaud

Raymond actively defends complex professional liability, construction litigation and product liability matters.  This includes the defense of accountants, architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors, allied construction professionals, and product manufacturers.

Raymond is experienced in complex multiparty litigation and has successfully represented clients in matters involving wrongful death, personal injury, school construction, condominium construction defects, reserve studies, public entity construction projects, geotechnical engineering (wall and slope collapse), crane collapse, roof failures, building collapse, surveying claims, bond claims, construction liens, fire litigation, and manufacturing product liability claims.

Upon graduating from Rutgers University in 1990, Raymond accepted a commission as a Second Lieutenant with the United States Air Force. He held numerous assignments as a Missile Combat Crew Commander during his active service, among other responsibilities.  Raymond is a combat veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom, having served a tour in Afghanistan with the Combined Forces Special Operation Component Command - Afghanistan.  In June 2011, Raymond retired as a Lt. Colonel from the United States Air Force. 

Raymond received his juris doctor from Widener University School of Law, an MBA (accounting) from Rockhurst University, and a Bachelor of Arts from Rutgers University.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 2001)
    • Rockhurst University (M.B.A., 1994)
    • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (B.A., 1990)
    • New Jersey, 2002
    • American Bar Association
    • Burlington County Bar Association
    • Camden County Bar Association
    • New Jersey Bar Association
    • United States Air Force (Reserves)
    • Case Studies in Ethics for Engineers, American Water Works Association (AWWA) NJ Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, March 23, 2023
    • Risk Strategy, Joint Meeting of the NJSPLS North Jersey Chapter and the Engineers and Surveyors Association of Bergen Passaic, May 2015
    • Forensic Accounting for Attorneys
    • Risk Strategies for Architects
    • Interpreting Indemnity Provisions in Contracts
    • Standardize Contracts: A Comparison of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the ConsensusDOCS
    • Key Concepts in Design Professional Ethics
    • Understanding and Complying with the American With Disabilities Act:  Barrier Free Requirements
    • How can Design Professionals Reduce Delay Claims
    • Design Professional:  Emerging Renewable Energy
    • Summary judgment granted for defendant is surveying malpractice matter. Reaffirmed on appeal to Appellate Court. Defendant found not to be liable for the plaintiff's $850K claim for surveying damages.
    • Successfully extracted design professional defendant from a wrongful death matter by summary judgment motion. Client was alleged to have provided improper design and site supervision.
    • Successfully extracted general contractor defendant from litigation by summary judgment motion where a worker fell from a roof.
    • Received no cause verdict for a developer in a multiparty roof collapse litigation after a six-week trial. Successfully defended the manufacturer of a crane manufacturer in a wrongful death product liability claim where the plaintiff, the operator, was crushed in a collapse.
    • Obtained a summary judgment dismissal for an indemnification claim in excess of $40 million.

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

Develop the Helpful Habits to Ward Off Litigation

June 1, 2023

Reprinted with permission from the Pennsylvania CPA Journal, a publication of the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants. CPAs provide services in an environment that is susceptible to litigation, as they often work on or with financial information on behalf of individual or corporate clients. Any accounting litigation is predicated on a theory of professional malpractice based on the facts surrounding the services provided. This article offers insight into how to prepare for the potential of unforeseen litigation.  A CPA can do little after the fact to prevent a plaintiff’s perception that the services provided damaged the plaintiff in some way. The time to prepare for unforeseen litigation is during the opening of an engagement, before any possible litigation tornado begins to swirl. This task requires a basic understanding of the roots of a malpractice claim.  A plaintiff can establish litigation upon very little, even an inconspicuous act suggesting advice beyond your training. There could be an extensive menu of facts or incidents that can be molded into a sustainable cause of action.  Acts are evaluated against various accounting standards, such as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). A malpractice claim could arise if there is a perceived deviation from a standard. Unfortunately, a plaintiff’s perception becomes a CPA’s litigation reality.  A deviation from established standards is characteristically the result of either an affirmative or a negligent act. The prospective plaintiff’s malpractice claim must prove that the CPA violated some standard in one of two causes of action: breach of contract or negligence.  When an accountant has affirmatively (intentionally or otherwise) performed or omitted an act that is a departure from a recognized standard, it is a cause of action for breach of contract. The elements of a cause of action for a breach of contract require the following:  An agreement for the CPA to provide their professional services.  A breach of duty owed under the contract (failure to meet an appropriate standard of professional care).  The failure of the CPA results in damages to the plaintiff.  When a CPA breaches a duty of care owed to the plaintiff it is a cause of action for negligence. A cause of action for negligence requires the following:  The CPA owed a duty of care. The CPA failed to exercise ordinary skills and knowledge.  The failure is the proximate cause of the harm. The plaintiff sustained damages.  The common thread for breach of contract and negligence causes of action is the assertion that the CPA deviated from the standard of care by violating some accounting standard. This means the CPA failed to use the skill, learning, and care normally used in similar circumstances. In many cases of malpractice, the CPA will present a fact derivative of the accounting services, and that fact is later determined to be incorrect. The rub is that the perceived deviation from the standard is that the CPA should have known the fact was incorrect. While all risks cannot be contained, some can be minimized by trusting your experience, insight, and pre-litigation preparation habits.  The first step in developing a defense is in the pre-engagement phase; the cornerstone of which is the engagement letter. The scope of the engagement should be clear and not open for interpretation. Describe the scope of work, how the work will be executed, and the parties’ individual responsibilities. Just as crucial, identify the scope of services excluded to reduce any possible misunderstanding or an expansion of services.  You can avoid claims by avoiding engagements outside your professional competency. A modest task can develop into an enormous mistake. Providing extraordinary services to a client may seem appropriate, but the risk is significant. Avoid the risk; instead, make a referral to a colleague with the required skill set and experience.  The second step is to communicate and manage your client’s expectations. Communication and the development of expectations are critical to meeting the client’s needs and avoiding misunderstandings – the seeds of future litigation. The parameters of accounting services are finite, and you must explain the limitations. Once boundaries have been established, take the next step to manage realistic expectations through a clear and concise explanation of what your services are, and what they are not.  Continuous communication with clients allows you to ensure their understanding and keeps them informed of the unanticipated. Clients are often more accepting of changes or issues when these are presented as soon as possible. Keep the client in the decision-making process, so they are part of any resolution.  The last critical step is to document, document, document. Contemporaneously record everything. A key document prepared during the engagement is an invaluable tool to defend a professional malpractice claim. Develop the habit of keeping records of appointments, correspondence, telephone logs, and notes (amongst other things). You will have a roadmap of dates, topics discussed, and decisions made to refer back to if you are targeted with a professional negligence claim.  It can be a burden to hang up the phone with a client and prepare correspondence to memorialize the discussions and decisions. Often, we believe this is not necessary and slows the process. Don’t fall into that perception trap. Protect yourself and your reputation from unfounded claims and misunderstandings. Document everything!  *Raymond is a shareholder in our Mount Laurel, New Jersey, office. He can be reached at 856.414.6306 or rjmichaud@mdwcg.com.     Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 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. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Develop the Helpful Habits to Ward Off Litigation

March 3, 2023

CPAs provide services in an environment that is susceptible to litigation, as they often work on or with financial information on behalf of individual or corporate clients. Any accounting litigation is predicated on a theory of professional malpractice based on the facts surrounding the services provided. This article offers insight into how to prepare for the potential of unforeseen litigation.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Perlmutter Provides Predictability for Punitive Damages Claims in Florida

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarity for the standards of proof for punitive damages claims in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026). Litigants and trial judges must be mindful of the standards laid out by the Court. And, defense practitioners must be prepared to alter their strategies to defend against such claims. Perlmutter came to the Court from the Fourth District, based on conflict jurisdiction with decisions from the Second and Fifth District and on certification of a question of great public importance as to the standard of proof for punitive damages claims at the pleading stage. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In the underlying case, the Fourth District made two conclusions. First, it held that a “trial court must consider the evidentiary showing by all parties at the hearing on the motion to amend, that is, evidence ‘in the record’ and evidence ‘proffered by the claimant.’”  376 So. 3d at 33. Second, the Fourth held that it “interpreted section 768.72(1) and (2) to require the trial court to make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted.  Id. at 34 (underscoring in the original). In making these conclusions, the court cautioned trial courts that the “preliminary determination” analysis did not entitle the trial court to decide whether the evidence is clear and convincing and noted that the trial court should not weigh evidence and should not determine witness credibility. Id. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and answered the certified question in the negative. It quashed the decision below and remanded the case for application of the following standards: The trial court should consider only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant; it should not entertain an evidentiary counter-submission from the opponent. The trial court should consider whether a reasonable person could conclude based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence” as defined in section 768.72(2) or section 768.72(3). The trial court must review the request for punitive damages in the context of the underlying claims. The trial court should not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the pleading stage. The trial court does not act as a fact-finder; the trial court must not weigh the claimant’s evidence—it cannot decide the truth of the matter. The trial court must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the allegations in the proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence. Perlmutter, SC2024-0058 at 13-15 (emphasis added). In explaining these standards, the Court interpreted the text of the statute and compared it to a related statute which governs punitive damages in the nursing home context. The nursing home statute expressly calls for evidentiary submissions by “the parties” and expressly tells the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant could satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” standard at trial. Id. at 17-18 (comparing the text of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, with section 400.0237, Florida Statutes). Without that express language in section 768.72, the statute could not be applied in the same manner. With these standards specially delineated for the trial courts, the Court is “confident that its interpretation of section 768.72(1) will not frustrate the effectiveness of the statute in accomplishing the Legislature’s textually evident purposes.” Id.  at 22 (cleaned up). This remains to be seen. While Perlmutter provides predictability and clarity for trial courts when reviewing the evidentiary submissions in support of a punitive damages claim, the decision will not likely impact the numbers of punitive damages motions filed. Rather, these new parameters will change the way claims are defended, reminiscent of a time when rulings on punitive damages were only subject to certiorari review and appellate courts were limited in reviewing procedural errors. This decision will likely deflate the level-playing field that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) addressed by allowing appeals of orders granting and denying punitive damages amendments. Further, Perlmutter may have impliedly created a call to action for the Legislature to amend section 768.72(1) in the same manner it amended section 400.0237 to allow the courts to analyze “admissible evidence submitted by the parties” and determine at a hearing whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant at trial would be able to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted. Until then, defendants must adjust their strategies. To adapt to these new standards, defense practitioners will need to tailor their strategy for defending punitive damages claims since they can no longer submit a counter-proffer or urge a court to apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading phase. Instead, defendants will need to attack the deficiencies in the claimant’s pleadings and proffer. If the trial court fails to serve as a gatekeeper, and does not apply the above standards, then defendants can pursue an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G). If a nonfinal appeal is taken, then defendants should move to stay any intrusive financial discovery while the appellate court analyzes the issues on appeal. Finally, defendants should utilize Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to serve as a screening device to allow the trial court to analyze all evidence and prevent nonmeritorious punitive damages claims from proceeding to a jury.

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Striking Complaint as Sanction for Violating Discovery Order

All Dry USA v. Savell, 2026 WL 816093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026) The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying All Dry USA’s complaint as a sanction for violating a discovery order. The appellate court found that All Dry USA’s failure to comply with the trial court’s case management order did not give the trial court the authority to strike All Dry USA’s pleadings. All Dry USA provided water mitigation, mold remediation, and a restorative tarp at the property owned by the Savells. The property had been damaged by Hurricane Sally. All Dry USA provided invoices for the three services it performed in the amount of $90,130.61. The Savells refused to pay the invoices, stating that while they had retained All Dry USA, there was no agreement reached regarding the cost of the services. All Dry USA proceeded to file a lawsuit against the Savells, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Savells answered the lawsuit and served discovery upon All Dry USA. All Dry USA failed to respond to the discovery requests and the Savells moved for an order compelling discovery. The trial court issued an order compelling All Dry USA to respond to Savells discovery requests and comply with all outstanding discovery deadlines per the case management order. On the day its responses were due, All Dry USA filed a motion to extend the deadline to comply with the court’s order. Before the motion was ruled upon, the Savells filed a motion to have All Dry USA’s complaint stricken for violating the trial court’s order compelling All Dry USA’s responses. The trial court granted the motion to strike, and then granted the Savell’s request for entry of default final judgment, based upon there no longer being an operative complaint. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that an order striking pleadings is justified if it is found that a party has violated numerous discovery orders, or has shown a “deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority.” Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983). The appellate court stated that a trial court’s authority to strike pleadings is not unbridled and that the situation before the court did not justify the striking of All Dry USA’s pleadings. In reaching its decision, the First District focused on the fact that the trial court only addressed the potential prejudice to Savell by All Dry USA failing to respond to discovery and seeking an extension of the deadline. The appellate court stated that prejudice is not the only factor to be considered and that the trial court needed to address if All Dry USA’s behavior in failing to comply with the discovery order was willful and deliberate.  The First District also stated that nothing in rule 1.200 or 1.380 grants a trial court the authority to strike a pleading because certain case management deadlines are not met. The appellate court held that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow trial courts to bring the parties in, order them to comply with the case management discovery deadlines, and then strike pleadings if the subsequent discovery orders are disobeyed. This ruling shows the importance of understanding the authority that is binding on the trial court a party is appearing in front of. The First District’s view on a trial court’s ability to strike pleadings is in contrast with other appellate court’s throughout Florida.

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. 

Thought Leadership

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA. 

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.