.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Practicing Law in "The Heart of It All"

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 2, June 2024

June 1, 2024

by David E. Williamson

The state of Ohio refers to itself as “The Heart of It All” because of its central location—highlighting the fact that approximately half the population of the United States is located within 500 miles of the state capital in Columbus, which is roughly half a day’s drive. In that same vein, the Cincinnati office of Marshall Dennehey offers a geographic advantage to the firm, the ability to provide service to clients in multiple jurisdictions which are just a short distance from a central location.

The Cincinnati office sits in the middle of the tri-state area of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. The physical office is in the business district of downtown Cincinnati, across the street from Paycor Stadium (Cincinnati Bengals), a few blocks from Great American Ballpark (Cincinnati Reds), a few blocks from crossing the Ohio River into Kentucky, and a short drive west to Indiana.

The office is the firm’s westernmost location, our “southern Ohio” office, with Cleveland being the “northern Ohio” office. These two offices are able to service any client’s needs throughout the entire state of Ohio, and we have the ability to defend cases in both state and federal courts throughout the state. 

The Cincinnati office also represents clients on a statewide basis throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky. There are multiple lawyers in the office who are able to defend cases in all state and federal courts throughout the entirety of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. We are excited about the prospects of our office’s ability to expand our firm’s presence in the Commonwealth as we continue to add lawyers to our roster. And the office also has the ability to handle cases in the state of Indiana. 

Cincinnati is one of the firm’s newer offices, opening in May 2014, and is celebrating its tenth anniversary this year! It was opened by Ray Freudiger and the late Sam Casolari, and our attorneys have represented clients since that time in both casualty and professional liability matters. Although it is one of the firm’s smaller offices, it has seen recent growth, and there are opportunities and aspirations for further growth in both numbers and geographic coverage.

The strength of the Cincinnati office is its diverse ability to handle a wide range of cases across the multiple jurisdictions listed above, including: general liability; professional liability; automobile liability; insurance services (coverage and bad faith litigation); commercial litigation; insurance agent and broker liability; premises liability; product liability; fraud/special investigation; real estate E&O liability; trucking and transportation liability; catastrophic injury; public entity and civil rights litigation; school leaders’ liability; architectural, engineering and construction defect litigation; hospitality and liquor liability; and health care liability. And the list goes on.

The lawyers in Cincinnati take pride in their strong work ethic and willingness to do whatever is necessary to deliver excellent results for our clients. They are well-suited to determine the needs of any particular case, work together to determine the lawyer and staffing who are best-equipped to handle each case, develop a plan for a successful result, and then work to achieve that result. 

The Cincinnati office has been growing and aspires to additional growth. We added a new associate in the professional liability department within the last year, and we are actively looking to add another associate, as our case volume has shown a steady increase. We continue to strive to further grow our office by spreading the word to lawyers in our geographic market that Marshall Dennehey has the best business model for lawyers who do what we do—defend lawsuits. Onward and upward!

We welcome you to visit us if you are in the area. We will be sure to treat you to our local delicacies: Graeter’s ice cream (universally regarded as some of the best there is, if not the best) and Skyline Chili (we will let you make your own assessment). We think they are both worth the drive, if you are lucky enough to be part of the population who can make it here in less than half a day.

*Dave is the managing shareholder of our Cincinnati office. 


 

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 2, June 2024, 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. © 2024 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.