.

Robin B. Snyder

Director, Health Care Department

Shareholder

RBSnyder@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Robin B. Snyder

Robin is the Director of the firm's Health Care Department, and is responsible for the day-to-day operations and supervision of our health care attorneys. She is also a member of the firm's Board of Directors. From 2003 – 2017, Robin served as the Managing Attorney of the firm’s Moosic office.

Robin concentrates her practice in the defense of medical malpractice for physicians, nurses, hospitals, dentists and long term-care facilities. Her past litigation experience also includes defending school civil rights cases, which gives Robin a unique perspective in handling mental and behavioral health cases. Throughout her 29-year career with Marshall Dennehey, Robin has tried more than 40 cases to verdict, including medical malpractice and civil rights cases. As a seasoned litigator, Robin has served as a coach for the firm's Mock Trial program, providing guidance and mentorship to young attorneys as they hone their litigation skills.  

Following graduation from The Pennsylvania State University in 1987, Robin worked with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and attended law school at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware.

Robin is an elected associate member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), a national association of experienced trial lawyers and judges that works to enhance the civil trial jury system. She is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as well as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1993)
    • The Pennsylvania State University (B.A., 1987)
    • Pennsylvania, 1993
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Litigation - Health Care (2023-2027)
    • American Board of Trial Advocates, 2022-present
    • Lackawanna County Bar Association - Board of Directors, 2016-2018; Civil Rules Committee, 2015-2018
    • Represented a hospital-based laboratory and its pathologists in an alleged misdiagnosis of breast cancer case. As a result of the diagnosis, which was interpreted as ductal carcinoma in situ, plaintiff underwent a lumpectomy and removal of lymph nodes resulting in mobility limitations and radiation which damaged her breast. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the laboratory and its pathologists. 
    • Obtained a defense verdict after a nine-day trial in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. The 52-year-old plaintiff presented to the emergency department with chest pain and stroke-like symptoms. She was administered 25 mg Phenergan IV in her hand, twice, and when her symptoms resolved and the MRI was clean, she was discharged. She returned two days later complaining of swelling in her hand and was diagnosed with infiltration. She claimed she developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and that she was disabled and unable to continuing working. Phenergan carries a Black Box warning that subcutaneous injection or perivascular extravasation may cause necrotic tissue. The jury found that the doctor, nurse and hospital did not breach the standard of care.
    • Tried a First Amendment political retaliation/freedom of association case in which she represented a school district. Plaintiffs alleged they suffered economic loss as a result of their political activities in supporting board members who ultimately lost the election. More significantly, plaintiffs alleged the retaliation occurred because they were friends with one another. Although we lost the case, after filing post-trial motions, the judge ordered a new trial, agreeing that his charge incorrectly implied that plaintiffs had a protected right of association for the purely social aspects of their relationships. We ultimately settled the case.
    • Successfully secured summary judgment in a case where plaintiff, a student at the University of Scranton/Wyoming Valley Healthcare System School of Nurse Anesthesia, was placed on academic probation and dismissed from the university. His complaint contained four causes of action, which were all dismissed: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 3) denial of due process; and 4) tortious interference with contract. Plaintiff appealed, and the Third Circuit affirmed.
    • Involved in a major case involving alleged abuse of seven minor autistic students. Through their parents, they claimed they were assaulted by their teacher in violation of their constitutional rights, resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder. Represented the school district where the alleged abuse occurred and its administrators. Successfully had the 14th Amendment claim against the individuals dismissed. The school district had an indemnification clause in its contract with the entity that employed the teacher, and, ultimately, the case settled for multi-millions, none of which was paid by the school district.
    • Navigating Medical Malpractice: Insights into Pennsylvania’s Legal Landscape, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Healthcare Summit, Harrisburg, PA, May 22, 2024
    • A Comparison of the Damages Awarded and Key Issues in Various Healthcare Jurisdictions, ILG360º London Annual Conference 2023, March 15, 2023
    • Business and Practice of Law Post-COVID-19: How Will It Change?, Pennsylvania Bar Association webinar, November 11, 2021
    • Civil Litigation Updates in COVID-19 Litigation – Where Do We Stand One Year Later?, Marshall Dennehey Webinar, May 2021
    • Telehealth and Documentation in the Time of COVID-19: Information and Best Practices to Protect Patients and Clinicians webinar, April 23 and May 14, 2020 

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Health Care Liability

Medical Malpractice Venue Rule Overturned

August 26, 2022

By Order dated August 25, 2022, effective January 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amended Pennsylvania’s venue rule, Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006, by deleting Rule 1006(a.1), which provided that medical malpractice actions must be filed “only in a county in which the cause of action arose.” Although this Rule change will not take effect until January 1, 2023, it will significantly change where many medical malpractice actions are filed. The effect of deleting Rule 1006(a.1) is to make medical malpractice actions subject to the same venue standards that apply to all other types of cases, which may be filed where (in relevant part) a defendant may be served, the cause of action arose, or a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose. Yesterday's Rule change will significantly expand the counties in which medical malpractice actions may be filed, with an expected increase in certain counties, primarily Philadelphia. This change eliminates a centerpiece of the Supreme Court’s own tort reform effort 20 years ago. By Order dated January 27, 2003, the Court promulgated Rule 1006(a.1) requiring medical malpractice actions to be filed only where the cause of action accrued. The result was a significant decline in medical malpractice filings statewide. The Order accompanying the Rule change states: “This Order shall be processed in accordance Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be effective January 1, 2023.” This language likely means that the amendment to Rule 1006 will apply to actions filed on or after January 1, 2023, regardless of when the cause of action accrued. When the Supreme Court promulgated Rule 1006(a.1) in 2003, the effective date applied to filings, and this Rule change likely will apply the same way. When Rule 1006(a.1) was promulgated in 2003, many plaintiffs rushed to file their medical malpractice actions before the Rule change took effect. We will likely now see the reverse trend: plaintiffs will wait until on or after January 1, 2023, to file new actions in venues that they view as more favorable. Finally, in addition to Rule 1006(a.1), there is a statute—42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101.1(b)—that requires medical malpractice actions to be filed where the cause of action arose. However, that statute was declared unconstitutional in North-Central Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers v. Weaver, 827 A.2d 550 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), on the basis that venue is a matter for the Supreme Court, not the legislature. Yesterday’s Order suspends any statute that is inconsistent with Rule 1006 as amended, so it is likely that the amended Rule, not the statute, will govern venue in medical malpractice cases beginning on January 1, 2023.   Legal Update for Health Care Liability - August 26, 2022, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments,and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

The Ohio Supreme Court Extends Sham-Affidavit Rule to Contradictory Expert Reports

Legal Roundup: Ohio In its June 23, 2026, decision in Moore v. Mercy Medical Center, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s decision to strike an expert witness’s affidavit that contradicted the opinions expressed in the expert’s prior report. This case pertains to allegations of medical malpractice after plaintiff Cheri Moore gave birth to an infant in respiratory distress who required intubation. Moore alleged that a delay in ordering an emergency cesarean section resulted in the need for intubation, causing her child’s injuries. Specifically, Moore sued Dr. Meniru, who completed his first shift at 7:00 a.m. on May 28, 2015, and did not resume treating Moore until 7:00 a.m. on May 29, 2015. One of Moore’s expert witnesses authored a report stating that the doctors, including Dr. Meniru, deviated from the standard of care by not advocating for a cesarean section in the evening of May 28, 2015. Based on this report, Dr. Meniru moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged breach occurred during a period when he was not on duty. In response to the summary judgment motion, the plaintiff filed an affidavit from the same expert. Although the expert expressly incorporated his previous report into his affidavit, he also offered an additional opinion: that Dr. Meniru breached the standard of care by failing to begin a cesarean section within 30 minutes of receiving reports of fetal distress. Dr. Meniru filed a motion to strike the expert’s affidavit, arguing that it contradicted the opinions set forth in his prior report in violation of the sham-affidavit rule. The sham-affidavit rule applies to “a contradictory affidavit that indicates only that the affiant cannot maintain a consistent story, or is willing to offer a statement solely for the purpose of defeating summary judgment”. Moore, supra, at ¶ 19, citing Pettiford v. Aggarwal, 126 Ohio St.3d 413, 2010-Ohio-3237. The trial court granted both the motion to strike and the motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth District affirmed. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted two questions of law: (1) whether the sham-affidavit rule applies when the sworn testimony contradicts prior unsworn statements; and (2) whether an inconsistency within the affidavit goes to credibility or admissibility, justifying an order striking the affidavit. Previous rulings by the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the sham-affidavit rule have pertained to contradictions between an affidavit and sworn deposition testimony. See, e.g., Byrd v. Smith, 2006- Ohio-3455, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 850 N.E.2d 47. However, here, the Court was asked to apply the same rule to contradictions between a sworn affidavit and an unsworn expert report. The Court held that, because Moore’s expert incorporated his prior report into his affidavit, he effectively adopted the report as part of his sworn testimony.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reaffirms Liberal Pleading Standard in Medical Malpractice Actions

Legal Roundup: Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Superior Court has reinforced a broader fact-pleading approach that may make it more difficult for health care defendants to obtain dismissal at the preliminary objection stage. In DaSilva v. Abington Memorial Hospital, the court held that the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint satisfied Pennsylvania’s fact‑pleading requirements despite the absence of individually named negligent actors. In DaSilva, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint alleging that Abington Memorial Hospital was directly and vicariously negligent after the patient, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was left unattended by hospital staff, exited the emergency department, and was struck by a vehicle, suffering serious injuries. The trial court sustained the hospital’s preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, stating plaintiffs “failed to plead any material factual allegations in support of their claims of negligence [and] set forth vague allegations of negligence and unidentified agency.” Id. at *5. The plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the complaint sufficiently pled negligence and vicarious liability claims under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). The court concluded that allegations describing the patient’s condition, the hospital’s awareness of that condition, and the alleged failure to monitor or prevent elopement were adequate to satisfy Pennsylvania’s pleading requirements. Significantly, the court rejected the hospital’s argument that the complaint failed because it did not identify the specific employees responsible for the alleged negligence. Instead, the court found that generalized references to “emergency room staff” were sufficient to place the hospital on notice of the claims because “the names of those who performed services for the plaintiff are known to the defendant or can be ascertained during discovery.” Id. at *12 (citing Est. of Denmark ex rel. Hurst v. Williams, 117 A.3d 300, 307 (Pa. Super. 2015)). The effect of DaSilva is that plaintiffs may proceed past the pleading stage with relatively generalized allegations, particularly in cases involving institutional defendants where relevant details are uniquely within the defendant’s control. As a result, health care defendants should anticipate that challenges to claim sufficiency may be resolved in the later stages of litigation, including discovery and summary judgment.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Congratulations To Our 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers & Rising Stars! Super Lawyers: Thomas F. Glassman Personal Injury, General Defense. Rising Stars: Micheal A. Roberts Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice Defense, Gabriella M. Wittbrod Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice Defense

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

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. 

News

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/. OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

Best Lawyers in America Recognition

We are proud of the firm’s 16 medical malpractice attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Special congratulations to Justin F. Johnson who was recognized as 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” in his jurisdiction for Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants. Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch • Holli K. Archer Best Lawyers in America: • Robert T. Evers • Jason P. Ferrante • Maria R. Granaudo • Joseph L. Hoynoski III • Leslie M. Jenny • Matthew P. Keris • Julia A. Klubenspies • Lynne N. Nahmani • John R. Ninosky • Gary M. Samms • Victoria Crawshaw Scanlon • Brett C. Shear • Joel M. Snavely • Robin B. Snyder