.

Robert is a distinguished attorney with years of experience in the legal profession. As an associate in the Casualty Department, he handles matters involving asbestos and toxic tort litigation and automobile liability. His practice also entails a wide variety of casualty cases, including premises liability, product liability claims and construction injury litigation. 

He began his career as a public defender in Philadelphia, where he advocated for the rights of individuals facing criminal charges. His experience in this role equipped him with a deep understanding of the criminal justice system as he represented clients throughout all phases of litigation.

Robert later served as a judicial law clerk which provided him with invaluable experience working with judges and deepening his knowledge of the legal system.  He then transitioned into a prominent labor and employment law firm where he helped individuals navigate complex legal situations with successful outcomes while focusing in the areas of criminal and family law.

Throughout his career, Robert has earned a reputation as a skilled and compassionate attorney who is dedicated to helping his clients achieve their legal goals. His clients appreciate his attention to detail and his ability to communicate legal concepts in a clear and understandable manner.

In addition to his professional accomplishments, Robert is also actively involved in his community. He has volunteered his time and legal expertise to several organizations that provide legal services to low-income individuals and families.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 2009)
    • Temple University (B.A., 2003)
    • Pennsylvania, 2009
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019
    • New Jersey, 2010
    • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Pennsylvania
    • Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Hearing Committee Member
    • The Innocence Project  Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent Program (VIP) Philadelphia Lawyers for Social Equity

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.