.

Jeffrey G. Rapattoni

Assistant Director, Casualty Department

Chair, Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Litigation Practice

Co-Chair, Fraud/Special Investigation Practice

Shareholder

Jeffrey is the Assistant Director of the Casualty Department and with the Director, is responsible for administrative oversight of more than 250 lawyers among 19 offices. Jeffrey is also a past member of the firm's Board of Directors, having served the maximum two term limit. 

Jeffrey joined Marshall Dennehey in 2008 and serves as the chair of the firm’s PIP Litigation Practice, co-chair of the firm's Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group. He focuses his practice on insurance fraud, bad faith and SIU related matters working with carriers both in the US and internationally.

For over 20 years Jeffrey has litigated insurance fraud and fraud-related matters on a national level. He acts as coordinating counsel to several insurance companies and helps clients develop strategies for defending complex litigation related to medical provider fraud, PIP and other emerging insurance issues. In addition, Jeffrey frequently consults with insurance carriers across the country to help integrate internal analytical platforms, create risk management protocol and conduct fraud-related investigations.

He has extensive training and background in provider-based investigations, underwriting fraud, policy voidance, and staged accidents. Other practice areas include large loss property claims, coverage, general civil litigation, and appellate practice. He is an experienced mediator and coordinates investigations for companies in the healthcare, insurance, gaming, hospitality and other industries. As part of his practice, Jeffrey has worked with experts in the fields of cause and origin and bad faith as well as local and federal authorities.

Jeffrey serves as Counsel to the Board of Directors of the International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU), the largest global organization devoted to fighting insurance fraud by connecting the insurance, investigatory and legal communities. He also is a member of the Advisory Board of the BigData@Rutgers certificate program, where he provides input on curriculum development to improve the program's offerings and value to the business community.

He frequently lectures on insurance fraud, bad faith and data analytics topics for a number of local and national insurance organizations. He also provides legal education seminars for clients and organizations across the country.

After graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Villanova University in 1997, Jeffrey served as a legislative correspondent for United States Senator Arlen Specter in Philadelphia and Washington D.C., where he assisted in drafting legislation and conducting legal investigations. While attending Rutgers Law School, he served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Judge John A. Almeida, J.S.C. Burlington County-Civil Division, where he drafted tentative dispositions of the court and assisted in court-ordered mediation sessions. 

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 2001)
    • Villanova University (B.A., 1997)
    • New Jersey, 2002
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2002
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2004
    • Michigan, 2016
    • Pennsylvania, 2026
    • Counsel, International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU) (2025)
    • Ohio Chapter of International Association of Special Investigators (IASIU) Service Award (2020)
    • New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) President's Award (2018)
    • Advisory Board Member, BigData@Rutgers Certificate Program (2017)
    • National Insurance Crime Bureau, Certificate of Appreciation (2010)
    • New Jersey Special Investigators Association President's Award (2009)
    • Counsel, Ohio Chapter of International Association of Special Investigators (IASIU)
    • Burlington County Bar Association
    • Camden County Bar Association
    • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance, Board Member and Secretary, South Jersey Chapter
    • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance, Insurance Fraud Committee Member
    • International Association of Special Investigators (IASIU)
    • National Society of Professional Insurance Investigators (NSPII)
    • New Jersey Insurance Defense Committee
    • New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA)
    • New Jersey State Bar Association
    • South Jersey Claims Association
    • Legal Affairs Committee of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, Member
    • The Lawyers Club of Philadelphia
    • "Crash & Con: Navigating Staged Accident Fraud," AM Best Insurance Law Podcast, May 22, 2025
    • Getting Caught With Your Hand in the Proverbial Cookie Jar, ClaimsXchange Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, October 12, 2023
    • Top Cases Impacting Fraud Fighting, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, June 28, 2023
    • The CAT's Out of the Bag: Insurance Fraud in Catastrophic Losses, CLM Annual Conference, Palm Desert, CA, March 24, 2022
    • PI’s in the Field – Pre, During & Post COVID & New Manned/Unmanned Surveillance, Illinois Chapter of IASIU, March 18, 2022
    • Charting the Course of Telehealth in the Post-COVID Landscape, ASHRM Webinar Series, April 27, 2021
    • Rising Risk and Economic Hardship: Insights on Fighting Fraud in Uncertain Times, CLM Webinar, November 5, 2020
    • Fraud Leadership Series: P&C Claims During Covid 19, FRISS Webinar, November 3, 2020
    • The Civil and Criminal State of the SIU in 2020, The Ohio Chapter of IASIU, October 27, 2020
    • All Hands Meeting- The Criminal State of the SIU in 2020, OIFP | NICB Webinar, October 7, 2020
    • National Perspective, Local Impact; New Case Law Impacting the SIU IASIU Webinar, September 14, 2020
    • SIU Litigation Trends Panel Discussion, IFM Webinar, May 12, 2020
    • CLM COVID-19 Webinar Series: "Stop the Spread...Don't Let COVID-19 Infect You With Insurance Fraud," April 23, 2020
    • Medical Investigator's Guide to the Modern SIU Claim, Speaker, New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2019
    • How the Market is Falling Short on CAT Claims, CLM Southeast Conference, Orlando FL, October 2019
    • How to Use Data in Your Advantage – Speaker, FRAUDTalks Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, September 24, 2019
    • Secrets to Maintaining a Successful Major Case Unit , IASIU, Phoenix, AZ, September 2019
    • Clamping Down On Fraud – Panelist, Casualty Actuarial Society Spring Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, May, 2019
    • SIU’s Management of Brand Protection – Concerns and Consequences, IFM, Coronado, CA, March 2019
    • Major Case From A-Z, IASIU 2018 Seminar & Expo on Insurance Fraud, Baltimore, MD, September, 2018
    • Major Case From A-Z, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360 Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June, 2018
    • The Evolving Partnership of Data Analytics and Claims, A.M. Best Webinar, May 3, 2018 (registration is required but no cost to view webinar)
    • How Smart Data is Remaking Insurance Claims, A.M. Best Webinar, February 22, 2018 (registration is required but no cost to view webinar)
    • Strategic SIU Management and Risk Avoidance – Moderator, 2017 Insurance Fraud Management Conference, Phoenix, AZ, March, 2017
    • Insurance Fraud - Staged Accidents: The New Frontier - panel, 2017 CLM Southeast Conference, Atlanta, GA, November, 2017
    • Trends and the Future State of SIU – Moderator, 27th Annual NJSIA Anti-Fraud Insurance Training Seminar, Atlantic City, NJ, October, 2017
    • Major Case From A-Z, IASIU 2017 Seminar & Expo on Insurance Fraud, New Orleans, LA, September, 2017
    • Ethics Roundtable, HB Litigation Northeast Corporate Counsel Forum, Atlantic City, NJ April, 2017
    • SIU Management Panel, New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2016
    • Deposing the Adjuster; Social Media and Big Data, IASIU Annual Seminar and Expo on Insurance Fraud, Red Rock, Nevada, September 2016
    • Managing the Risk in SIU Investigations, Panel Moderator, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360 Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June, 2016
    • Risk Management in SIU,  IFM/ISO- Insurance Fraud Management Conference, Savannah, Georgia, March 2016
    • NAMIC Webinar: Contemporary Solutions to Provider and Claimant Medical Fraud, October 27, 2015
    • NAMIC Webinar: Provider Fraud Investigations in Personal Injury Protection Claims, October 13, 2015
    • NAMIC Webinar: Medical Provider Fraud in Uninsured Motorist/Bodily Injury Claims, October 6, 2015
    • Building a Better Medical Major Case, New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2015
    • SIU Data Analytics: A Sword and Shield for Florida Law, Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC) 23rd Annual Conference, June 11, 2015
    • Avoiding Risk in Managing the Anti-Fraud Function and Tracking the Value-Add of SIU, 2015 Insurance Fraud Management Conference, Coronado, California, March , 2015.
    • Dissecting The Staged Loss Claim, Speaker, New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2014
    • "The Burden of Medical Provider Fraud on the Insurance Industry," A.M. Best PODCAST, September 2014
    • SIU Management Panel - Contemporary SIU Issues, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360 Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June 2014
    • Managing and Investigating Billing Misrepresentations Under the New PIP Statute, Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC) 22nd Annual Conference, June 12, 2014.
    • Effectively Managing Contemporary Insurance Fraud Issues, National Society of Professional Insurance Investigators’ 2013 Advanced Insurance Fraud Seminar, St. Louis, MO, November, 2013
    • Effectively Managing Major Case Investigations of Fraudulent Medical Providers, Speaker, New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2013
    • Trending Contemporary Medical Fraud, IASIU's 28th Annual Seminar and Expo on Insurance Fraud, Atlanta, GA, September 2013
    • Contemporary Medical Fraud Issues, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud Perspectives Seminar, Cleveland, OH, November 2012
    • Effectively Managing Complex and Emerging Issues, NJSIA 22nd Annual Fraud Seminar, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2012
    • Discussions of Recent Florida Case Law Developments Regarding EUO Methodology and Limitations, FIFEC - Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee, Orlando, FL, June 2012
    • Effectively Managing Contemporary Provider Fraud Issues, Marshall Dennehey Fraud Seminar - Insurance Fraud Perspectives, Lafayette Hill, PA, June 2012
    • Proper Interaction and the Role of the Public Adjuster During an Arson Investigation, ICAC - National Arson Training Seminar, Las Vegas, NV, February, 2012
    • Managing Public Adjuster Issues, IFM - Insurance Fraud Management Conference, Phoenix, AZ, March, 2012
    • NJSIA – Anti-Fraud Training Seminar, Acupuncture Fraud and Abuse, October 2011
    • 2010 NJSIA Auto Theft Investigations; Hail Fraud Claims; Public Adjuster and Homeowner's Fraud, Presenter 
    • 2010 IASIU Property Loss Fraud, Presenter 
    • National Insurance Crime Bureau - 2010 - Hail Storm and Large LossProperty Claims
    • Multi-State Auto Theft Investigation Review, 2010 - Combating Insurance Fraud Seminar, Conshohocken, PA 
    • 2010 IFM General Convention, Point of Sale Fraud, Co-Presenter 
    • 2010 IAA & ACFE Fraud Convention, Insurance Fraud, Presenter 
    • 2009 NJSIA SIU Investigations of the Future, Presenter 
    • 2009 NSPII Medical Provider Fraud, Presenter 
    • 2009 IASIU Public Adjuster Fraud, Presenter
    • 2008 IASIU Medical Provider Fraud, Presenter 
    • 2008 NJSIA Preferred SIU Strategies, Presenter 
    • 2008 NSPII Point of Sale and Underwriting Fraud, Presenter 
    • 2007 NJSIA Innocent Third Party Seminar, Presenter 
    • 2006 NJSIA Policy Voidance Seminar, Presenter 
    • 2005 NJSIA Public Adjuster Fraud Seminar, Co-Presenter 
    • 2004 NJSIA Underwriting Fraud Seminar, Co-Presenter 
    • Defeated a bad faith action where plaintiffs sought treble and punitive damages based upon coverage denials.
    • Secured a voluntary dismissal regarding a $750,000 fraudulently submitted homeowner's claim.
    • Secured a voluntary dismissal with respect to a $375,000 homeowners/bad faith matter in which the insured submitted a fraudulent contents inventory.
    • Through the use of medical and forensic accounting experts, Jeffrey has also been successful in collecting on behalf of insurance carrier clients large sums of money improperly paid to fraudulent medical providers.

Thought Leadership

Events

Firm Highlights

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.

Thought Leadership

Coverage Determined, Judgment Paid, Bad Faith Survives: Fourth DCA’s Opinion Highlights the Distinction Between Contractual and Extra-Contractual Damages

In Healthy Food Experts, LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co., No. 4D2025-0181 (4th DCA June 10, 2026), the Fourth District Court of Appeal explained that an insurer’s payment of a judgment in a breach of contract case does not automatically eliminate a later bad faith claim seeking extra-contractual damages. The decision provides guidance on when a first-party bad faith claim may still proceed after a coverage dispute has already been resolved by a judgment. Healthy Food Experts, LLC involved a dispute related to a property damage claim submitted under a commercial insurance policy issued by the insurer following a ceiling collapse at the insured’s restaurant. The insurer denied coverage for the insured’s losses for business personal property and business income, but extended coverage for the food spoilage losses. As a result, the insured filed a breach of contract action and ultimately obtained a jury verdict. The insurer appealed the verdict and, while the appeal was pending, the insured filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) seeking payment for the judgment plus interest. The insurer failed to cure the CRN within the statutory sixty-day cure period, but paid the judgement in full with accrued interest following the appeals court’s per curiam affirmance. Nevertheless, the insured filed a first party bad faith lawsuit claiming to have suffered extra-contractual damages. In response to the bad faith suit, the insurer filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, relying on Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016) stating that damages were fixed by judgment of the breach of contract suit and the insured could not recover additional damages beyond those already awarded. The insurer also argued that the judgment did not exceed the insured’s policy limits, which was a required element of a first party bad faith claim. The trial court dismissed the bad faith action based on Fridman, concluding the insured could not seek any additional damages.  The insured appealed the court’s ruling to the Fourth DCA arguing the trial court’s order conflicts with Florida law and misapplies Fridman, as a contractual damage determination in the underlying suit establishes the “condition precedent to prosecute a first party bad faith action.” Cingari v. First Protective Ins. Co., 377 So. 3d 1169, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Further, the insured argued that the only purpose to the binding language in Fridman is to prevent the re-litigating of the same damages, which in this case are the contractual damages. The insured asserted the damages were not the “same” as they were seeking consequential damages from the insurer’s alleged bad faith. The Fourth District emphasized in its ruling that a first party bad faith claim is not ripe for litigation until there has been the following: a determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; a determination of the extent of the insured’s contractual damages, and the required civil remedy notice is filed pursuant to §624.155(3)(a).  Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 218, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) The court concluded that the necessary conditions were satisfied as the jury verdict determined both coverage and the extent of the insured’s contractual damages, and the insured properly filed a civil remedy notice, so the bad faith claim was ripe for litigation. The Fourth DCA further explained the insured could not seek contractual damages in its bad faith action, which was previously litigated in its breach of contract suit. However, the court determined the insured could seek “extra-contractual damages,” which were not recoverable in the insured’s breach of contract suit, which may include interest, court cost, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the insured. Further, the court held excess judgment is not essential in a first party bad faith claim and the insurer’s late payment of the judgment did not preclude the insured’s bad faith action. As a result, the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s final dismissal order of the bad faith action. This opinion highlights the distinction between contractual and extra-contractual damages. Moreover, this case demonstrates that a judgment does not necessarily end the dispute in a first party property claim as it is could also serve as a prerequisite of a bad faith action. The decision serves as a reminder that insurers may face bad faith exposure notwithstanding the payment of a judgment in an underlying breach of contract action.

Thought Leadership

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA.