.

Michael J. Connolly

Portrait of Michael J. Connolly

A member of the firm’s Casualty Department, Mike primarily handles matters involving premises liability, automobile, and general liability. Mike regularly defends commercial motor vehicle and trucking cases including transportation fleets engaged in interstate trucking, waste hauling, shuttle and bus operators, and rental vehicle fleets. In addition to commercial motor vehicle cases, he also defends commercial businesses and properties on their liability claims, including hotels, resorts and others within the hospitality industry. Mike also represents various public utility organizations within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  

Mike has handled wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases, surface mining accidents, motor vehicle, product liability and underinsured/uninsured (UIM/UM) motorists claims. He routinely serves as monitoring counsel for insurance carriers on excess casualty claims and has presented seminars on the subject of risk management and best practices associated with safety.

An honors graduate of the University of Scranton, Mike then received his juris doctor from Drexel University with distinction in the field of Insurance Law. Mike worked for the Honorable Chester T. Harhut, former President Judge of Lackawanna County and the Lackawanna County District Attorney. Admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Mike is also a member of the American Bar Association, Pennsylvania Bar Association and Lackawanna County Bar Association. Mike previously worked with the Law School Admission Council as an administrator of the Law School Admission Test for prospective law students, as well as with the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners on the Multi-state Professional Responsibility Exam.

Within the firm, Mike serves as a member of the Executive Committee Advisory Council, whose purpose is to enhance the communication between the Executive Committee and younger members of the firm's professional ranks, including associates, special counsel and junior shareholders.    

Mike was selected as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star for six consecutive years between 2015 and 2020, and since 2024 has been recognized by the Best Lawyers in America© for Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants.

    • Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law (J.D., 2010)
    • University of Scranton
      • B.A., B.S., cum laude, 2007
    • Pennsylvania, 2010
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2010
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (2024-2026)
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants (2025-2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2015-2020)
    • American Bar Association
    • Lackawanna County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • "Expert Medical Evidence Mandatory on Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims," Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 4, December 2016
    • Obtained a compulsory nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff’s case during a jury trial in Luzerne County.  The case stemmed from a fall that occurred in a grocery store.  It was undisputed that the plaintiff experienced a hard fall after stepping on a bottle containing an energy drink while shopping.  Plaintiff suffered several injuries including serious nerve damage to both legs as a result of the fall. Although the plaintiff had alleged both actual and constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition created by the bottle on the floor, she failed to introduce any evidence beyond mere speculation of that notice, and the court granted the nonsuit.
    • Successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of commercial property owners under the immunity available to owners who hire independent contractors to perform work on the owners’ property.  Plaintiff was operating an electric saw as part of a building demolition project when he lost his footing and fell from a roof sustaining serious injuries. We demonstrated why none of the available exceptions to the immunity rule applied to the subject property owners.  Summary judgment was granted under Pennsylvania’s recognition of immunity for property owners who hire competent independent contractors to complete a project, when the owners retain no control over project details, supervision, or safety.
    • Successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a real estate company in a property destruction case in which a moving company was hired to enter, clean, and winterize a property prior to the real estate company’s listing the property for sale.  Instead, the moving company went to the wrong house and emptied and destroyed all of the Plaintiff’s belongings and contents.  Plaintiff sued various defendants, including the real estate company which had no role in hiring the moving company, nor any knowledge of the wrongfully destroyed property.  Plaintiff attempted to connect all of the defendants involved through various theories of agency, conspiracy and identity theft.  Summary judgment was granted in favor of the real estate company after it was shown that Plaintiff failed to establish the requisite burden of proof for the claims under Pennsylvania’s agency laws, as well as the laws on identity theft and conspiracy. 

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.