.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Public Entity and Civil Rights Litigation Practice Group

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 3, October 2022

October 1, 2022

Marshall Dennehey’s long history of representing public entities started in the early 1980s with one attorney, Robert Hanna, in our Philadelphia office. Since then, our representation has grown exponentially. Today, we regularly defend governmental entities, including public school districts, cities, counties, authorities, state agencies, and their employees, elected officials, and administrators in virtually any claim brought in both state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio and New York. Additionally, our Pittsburgh office routinely defends cases in West Virginia at our clients’ request, as they recognize our expertise in these areas of the law. A brief but certainly not exclusive summary of the types of cases the Public Entity and Civil Rights Litigation Practice Group handle includes:

Tort Claims Cases

Our state tort claims cases run the gamut—from injuries on school bleachers to unsafe road design, and from fallen trees that cause personal injury to municipal motor vehicle accidents. This work is unique to each state, and our attorneys who live and work in those states recognize and appreciate the nuances of the individual statutes governing public entity liability for these claims. We understand the defenses and limitations of damages that may apply and report on these to our clients and carriers.

Employment

We defend public employment cases before administrative agencies in addition to both state and federal courts. While most cases involve allegations pertaining to the ADA, ADEA, Title VII and the FMLA, we also defend First Amendment retaliation claims, violation of Procedural Due Process, and state Whistleblower and Federal False Claims Act matters.

Civil Rights

We continue to proudly represent police officers and police departments during these difficult times. Our experience allows us to evaluate the facts, understand the law and, on an individual basis, conduct the necessary investigation to make informed recommendations to our clients on the best course of action. Over the years, we have tried to verdict hundreds of police cases alleging civil rights violations, including excessive force, police pursuits, malicious prosecution and false arrest. A significant number of our victories have been affirmed by the appellate courts and cited throughout the country in briefs and opinions.

School Liability (Both Public School Districts and Private Schools)

Our defense of schools primarily involves cases alleging student-on-student bullying and inappropriate staff contact with students. Those cases can be brought both under Title IX and state statutes, and we see them regularly in state and federal courts. In addition, we handle IDEA and Due Process claims brought by parents to resolve disputes with a district regarding their children’s education, whether for special education needs or suspension/expulsion.

Our practice group has an exceptionally experienced and strong bench of attorneys including, but not limited to, Scott Dunlop and Paul Krepps in our Pittsburgh office, Richard Goldstein and Matthew Behr in New Jersey, A.C. Nash in Florida, Donald Carmelite in Harrisburg, Keith Hansbrough in Cleveland, Jay Habas and Patrick Carey in Erie, and John Gonzales in our Philadelphia office, to mention a few. They each have a team of attorneys and paralegals who work with them and who are experienced in all facets of defending public entities. We pride ourselves on our reputation, built up over 40-plus years, and a history of trying complex and difficult cases. Because of this extensive experience, we are able to negotiate favorable settlements in the appropriate case, thus avoiding costly exposure and publicity.

Another vital service the Public Entity and Civil Rights Litigation Practice Group provides includes presenting seminars and training sessions to both clients and insurers where we address legal issues and updates specific to the many jurisdictions we service. Recent seminars have covered Title IX, state tort liability claims and Constitutional law, including malicious prosecution and excessive force. In addition, we provide counseling and guidance to our clients that includes reviewing and updating policies and procedures in both the employment and police practices context. These services have enabled our clients to reduce their liability exposure while promoting best practices.

We welcome you to look at the bios of the attorneys in our group and please let us know if you have any questions. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 3, October 2022 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. © 2022 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.

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.