.

Ronald J. Richert

Portrait of Ronald J. Richert

Ron is a member of the casualty department where he handles matters involving product liability with an emphasis on asbestos litigation. He has been involved in the discovery, motions and trial aspects of this litigation for more than 24 years. Ron has represented product manufacturers, product suppliers, contractors, property owners, and employers in cases pending in Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. He has also coordinated discovery for clients in multiple jurisdictions and worked with local trial counsel to advance his clients’ interests. Ron’s history, knowledge and attention to detail allow him to provide his clients with invaluable advice on how best to navigate the unique challenges that exist in toxic tort litigation.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Ron was a partner with a local firm that handled insurance defense work with a concentration on asbestos litigation. He has defended the interests of his clients and served as lead defense counsel at time of trial and throughout the discovery period. Ron has also coordinated with clients, insurance representatives and the plaintiffs’ bar in negotiating release language to address the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. 
In addition to his product liability practice, Ron has handled various general liability matters. He has litigated breach of contract, property damages and auto accident cases before the Court of Common Pleas and compulsory arbitration board in Allegheny County.

Ron attended the Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University, where he graduated with a Juris Doctor in 2001. While at Dickinson, Ron was a member of Law Review and won the Cali Award for Excellence in the study of Environmental Compliance. 

    • Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University (J.D., 2001)
    • University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg (B.A., 1998)
    • Pennsylvania, 2001
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2005
    • West Virginia, 2007
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of West Virginia, 2007
    • Allegheny County 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.