.

Alyson J. Kirleis

Portrait of Alyson J. Kirleis

Alyson has defended health care providers for more than 35 years, with clients ranging from physicians, nurses and dentists, to hospitals and long-term care facilities. She is an experienced litigator who secured a defense verdict in her very first jury trial in 1991, and has been trying cases to verdict ever since. She has handled civil, trial and appellate matters throughout western Pennsylvania. She has successfully tried cases to verdict before juries in state and federal courts, and has prevailed on a number of appeals before both Pennsylvania and Federal appellate courts. Alyson also represents health care professionals before various licensing boards in Pennsylvania, providing counsel from the initial incident through interviews with the Licensing Board investigators and hearings in front of the Hearing Examiner or Professional Licensing Board.

In addition to her litigation practice, Alyson provides risk management counseling for health care organizations and dental practices. She has also represented employers in governmental agency hearings and labor grievance arbitrations.

An active member of the legal community, Alyson was inducted into the prestigious Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County in 2018. The Academy of Trial Lawyers is limited to 250 members which consist of 125 of the best plaintiff trial lawyers and 125 of the best defense trial lawyers in Allegheny County. Alyson was honored to serve on the Board of Governors for the Academy of Trial Lawyers and has also served on the Membership Committee. She has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer from 2007 through 2015, and again in 2024. She is also a member of the American Bar Association’s Tort Trial Insurance Practice Section, and the Allegheny and Pennsylvania Bar Associations.

Alyson is a frequent speaker on topics germane to her practice, including medical records documentation, licensing board matters, disruptive physicians, successful trial strategies, discovery, and labor/employment matters.

    • University of Pittsburgh School of Law (J.D., 1988)
    • Lehigh University (B.A., 1985)
    • Pennsylvania, 1988
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 1988
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1990
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 1993
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2023
    • Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County, Fellow (2018-present)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2007-2015; 2024-2026)
    • Approved Mediator, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    • Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County; Board of Governors (2022-2025), Membership Committee (2022-2025)
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • American Bar Association; Tort Trial Practice Section member
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association

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.