.

Sandy Caiazzo

Director of Administrative Services

Portrait of Sandy Caiazzo

Sandy Caiazzo serves as Director of Administrative Services, with firmwide responsibility for the oversight of all legal administrative personnel and administrative management functions.  In this role, she provides strategic leadership to ensure operational excellence, consistent service delivery, and alignment between administrative teams and the firm’s legal practices.

Sandy brings a broad and deeply rooted perspective to her role, having progressed through multiple positions within the firm. She began her career as a legal administrative assistant and advanced to regional office manager, Assistant Director of Administrative Services, and ultimately Director. This progression has equipped her with a comprehensive understanding of the day-to-day needs of attorneys and staff, enabling her to streamline processes, enhance productivity, and lead administrative teams with both empathy and effectiveness. With a keen awareness of the evolving legal workforce, Sandy is an active change facilitator, particularly in the introduction and implementation of alternative staffing models.

In addition to her administrative leadership responsibilities, Sandy serves as the firm’s Lateral Integration Coordinator, where she is responsible for overseeing the onboarding of new lateral shareholders, guiding them through the integration process from their initial arrival and beyond. This collaborative and relationship driven role is one she finds especially rewarding, as it supports the long-term success of both the attorneys and the firm.

Sandy is a longstanding member of the National Association of Legal Administrators (NALA) and is deeply engaged in the professional community. She currently serves as Education Chair for the Independence Chapter and has been a dedicated board member of the chapter for more than ten years, reflecting her commitment to leadership development, education, and the advancement of the legal administration profession.

    • Association of Legal Administrators
    • Board Member and former President of the Independence Chapter of ALA
    • Chairperson for the Education Committee for the Independence Chapter of ALA
    • Hunter Soccer Club Board Member
    • Former President of the Roxborough Kiwanis Club and the Roxborough Community Orchestra

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.