.

Matthew J. Butler

Portrait of Matthew J. Butler

Matt’s wealth of legal experience spans nearly 20 years of representing both defendants and plaintiffs. Having worked with clients on both sides provides Matt with a unique perspective and advantage in identifying key areas of focus throughout the various stages of litigation. His recent litigation practice has focused on the defense of health care providers including doctors, nurses, nursing staff, physician practice groups, skilled nursing facilities and personal care homes throughout Pennsylvania. Matt is a skilled trial lawyer, with experience in all stages of litigation from inception of the case through conclusion.

Prior to representing health care providers and other medical professionals, Matt handled matters on behalf of plaintiffs in the areas of auto liability, general liability, bad faith litigation and medical malpractice.

Matt graduated from College of the Holy Cross in 2001 with Bachelor of Arts degree. He then spent a volunteer year with Legal Action of Wisconsin as a paralegal through the Jesuit Volunteer Corps helping individuals who were unable to afford legal services. In 2005, Matt received his juris doctor from Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware. Upon graduation, he served a two-year term as law clerk to the Honorable Terrence R. Nealon of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County prior to entering private practice.

Matt’s involvement in the local legal community includes memberships in the Lackawanna Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Association. He is admitted to practice through the state courts of Pennsylvania as well as the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Matt is also actively involved in his local community as a youth coach. He lives in Scranton with his wife and four daughters.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 2005)
    • College of The Holy Cross (B.A., 2001)
    • Pennsylvania, 2005
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2005
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Stars, 2012-2013, 2018
    • Lackawanna County Bar Association
    • 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.