.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Working In the “First State” – Spotlight on Wilmington

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 2024

March 1, 2024

by Sarah B. Cole

Wilmington, Delaware, is small but mighty. It is a city on the upswing and a great place to practice law. Many companies choose to incorporate in Delaware and, as a result, the courts and litigators keep plenty busy with disputes that originate in and out of the state. 

The Delaware office of Marshall Dennehey opened in 1995 and, since that time, has represented clients in casualty, professional liability, workers’ compensation, and medical malpractice matters. For the first 25-plus years of its existence, this office was led by Kevin Connors, who maintains a busy practice to this day. During his tenure, the office grew to roughly 20 attorneys in the firm’s four major departments. Our Wilmington office maintains a robust practice throughout all three counties in the state. 

The strength of the Delaware office is in its people. The office, like the firm itself, makes a commitment to each person who joins us to provide apprenticeship, guidance, comradery, and support. We want people to succeed here, and we are committed to their advancement. If you were to walk down the hallways of our office, you would see open doors, friendly faces (for the most part), some odd artwork, and fantasy football draft posters. You will also likely come across our main kitchen and probably find some donuts and a vending machine that works fairly well. Most importantly though, you will find a welcoming atmosphere that serves as the foundation for our firm’s and our office’s success. 

The attorneys in our office have a few time-honored traditions, most notably, the annual Crab Trip. Every June, attorneys board a bus (hopefully equipped with a bathroom) and make the journey down to Leipsic, Delaware, for an afternoon of crabs, hush puppies, fried-everything, and Prairie Fires. The bus then usually takes a meandering route back to Wilmington, stopping at various well-heeled establishments along the way. It is on this trip that bonds are formed and friendships are solidified. We are a team, and we enjoy each others company.

The Wilmington office is growing, both with the type of litigation work we take on and the attorneys who come on board. We added a new shareholder and three associates in all four litigation departments in the last two years and hope to add more in 2024. The future is bright. We welcome you as well and invite you to come and visit. Feel free to bring donuts.

*Sarah is a shareholder and the managing attorney of our Wilmington, Delaware, office. She can be reached at (302) 552-4364 or SBCole@mdwcg.com. 


 

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 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.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 2024

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.