.

Jay S. Rothman

General Counsel

Chair, Commercial Litigation Practice Group

Portrait of Jay S. Rothman

Jay Rothman serves as the general counsel for Marshall Dennehey. He brings a unique understanding of business issues to his duties as general counsel as well as to his law practice, where he concentrates largely on commercial litigation matters in the defense of virtually all non-medical professionals. Jay's clients include accountants, appraisers, abstractors, consultants, mortgage brokers, real estate professionals and lawyers. Jay also defends director and officer claims, FDCPA/FCRA claims, class actions, defamation/disparagement and RICO actions. 

Jay is a frequent lecturer in the fields of professional liability and risk management. As well, he is actively involved in designing and implementing internal risk management protocols for client implementation. 

Since 1987 Jay has practiced at Marshall Dennehey, when he began his legal career.  He was elected as a shareholder in 1994, served as the vice chair of the firm's Transactional Litigation Practice Group within the Professional Liability Department, and in 2009 was appointed as general counsel.

In 1984 Jay graduated from the University of Michigan where he received his bachelor of arts degree. He is a 1987 graduate of Washington College of Law at American University where he earned his juris doctor degree. While in law school, Jay served as a legal intern at the Securities and Exchange Commission's Enforcement Division. 

    • American University Washington College of Law (J.D., 1987)
    • University of Michigan (B.A., 1984)
    • Pennsylvania, 1987
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1987
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1987
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer (2011-2012)
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Professional Liability Underwriters Society (PLUS)
    • Understanding the Subprime Credit and Housing Crisis, Insurance Society of Philadelphia, June 2008 
    • Analyzing the Corporate Structure and Its Implications with Respect to Liability and Damages, Insurance Society of Philadelphia, June 2008 
    • Risk Management Techniques and Ethical Obligations In Litigating Eminent Domain Proceedings, National Conference of Eminent Domain, November 21, 2002 
    • Malpractice Avoidance for Lawyers, Pennsylvania Bar Association, April 16, 2002 
    • The Legal Malpractice Explosion - Risk Management Techniques, Delaware County Bar Association Sponsored by The Young Lawyers Division, May 11, 2001 
    • Risk Management Techniques for Realtors, National Association of Realtors Annual Conference, Spring, 2000 
    • Discharging Your Ethical Obligations to Communicate with Your Client, Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education, January 26, 1999 
    • Risk Management Techniques for Accountants, PICPA Annual Accounting and Auditing Conference, December, 1998 
    • Private Securities Litigation Reform Act - New Developments
    • In-House Seminars for Various Insurance Companies - Risk Associated with Claims in the Real Estate Profession
    • In-House Seminars for Various Accounting Firms - Risk Management Techniques
    • In-House Seminars for Various Insurance Companies - Developing Case Law in the Legal Malpractice Arena
    • "Liability Survival Is in the Limits," Pennsylvania CPA Journal, Volume 77, No. 4, Winter 2006 
    • "Client Referrals Are Not Without Risk," Pennsylvania CPA Journal, Volume 77, No. 1, Spring 2006 
    • "Subpoenaed? Call Your Attorney," Pennsylvania CPA Journal, Volume 76, No. 3, Fall 2005 
    • "Consider Protective Clauses," Pennsylvania CPA Journal, Volume 76, No. 1, Spring 2005 
    • "Engagement Creep," Pennsylvania CPA Journal, Volume 75, No. 3, Fall 2004 
    • "Envisioning Real Estate Practice without Boundaries," Real Estate: A Supplement to the Legal Intelligencer and Pennsylvania Law Weekly, July 2004 
    • "Tort v. Contract Claims in the Defense of Professionals - What's In a Name The Pennsylvania Superior Court Affirms Application of the Contributory Negligence Doctrine," Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2004 
    • "The Pariah Cometh - Take a Look at Your Accountant," PLUS Journal, April 2002 
    • "Pantuso Motors v. CoreStates Bank: Lenders Beware," Defense Digest, Vol. 8, No. 4, December 2002 
    • "Law Safeguards Parties against Bad Inspections," Lawyers Journal and the Philadelphia Legal Intelligencer, Real Estate Quarterly, March 9, 2001 
    • "Reliance on Home Inspection May Eliminate Liability of Seller," Defense Digest, Vol. 7, No. 2, April 2001 
    • "Professionals Beware: Further Relaxation of the Privity Requirement Under Pennsylvania Law," Defense Digest, Vol. 6, No. 4, July 2000 
    • "The Y2K Act: Defining the Coverage Battleground," Defense Digest, Vol. 5, No. 5, 1999
    • "Litigation without Damages: A New Twist to the Damage Element of Tort Actions," Defense Digest, Vol. 2, No. 5, 1996
    • "Third Party Subpoena of Accountants - Your Right to Your Work Papers," The Asset Column, Practical Protection Tips for Accountants, Vol. 6, No. 3 

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group

December 1, 2022

Our Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group has a long history of representing real estate professionals. We have defended real estate brokers and agents, title agents and abstractors, appraisers, surveyors, home inspectors, mortgage companies, property management companies and condominium associations, on all types of claims brought in state and federal court and regulatory forums throughout all jurisdictions in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Florida, Delaware, Ohio and Connecticut. These claims manifest themselves in a variety of ways, with most arising from commercial and residential real estate transactions. They involve disputes surrounding disclosures, financing, valuation, liens, zoning, property management, conditions, construction, and a variety of other items that arise from the property acquisition and transfer process. The claims range from contract to tort, to those raising statutory violations. Many present equitable issues involving easements, deed restrictions and title. Apart from these standard E&O claims, the Group also represents and defends condominium associations and boards in disputes arising with and between unit owners and third parties. These claims may involve property damage, construction, water, fire and mold disputes. They can also include a variety of other issues, including those specific to particular jurisdictions, like mold, sinkholes and storm-related claims. We also handle disputes surrounding the legal interpretation and application of association governance documents, such as declarations and by-laws in declaratory judgment actions. In the regulatory forum, our lawyers regularly defend real estate professionals against customer complaints resulting from the delivery of services. They often implicate violations of state and administrative law concerning the delivery of professional services. We defend real estate agents, appraisers, title agents and a variety of other professionals from these complaints, starting with the customer complaint or initial inquiry received through the administrative hearing process. Our practice group is composed of seasoned, creative and highly regarded lawyers who have litigated many complex disputes. They include shareholders: Jay Rothman, Jeffrey Chomko and Dana Gittleman in Philadelphia; Christopher Conrad in our Harrisburg office; Jonathan Kanov in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Christopher Block in our Roseland, New Jersey, office; and Aaron Moore in our Wilmington, Delaware, office. We also have a team of associates and paralegals who work with them in preparing and defending all aspects of these cases. We pride ourselves on our strong reputation, earned over the last 60 years through the successful defense of the most complex and difficult matters. Our philosophy is simple: to quickly evaluate and strive to efficiently resolve these matters at an early stage, if possible, in order to avoid costly, unpredictable litigation. Nevertheless, if necessary, we are prepared to take to trial those cases that cannot be resolved. We also present seminars and training sessions to clients and insureds that address legal issues that arise in the particular jurisdictions we service. We discuss best practices for real estate agents, home inspectors and other professionals. We welcome you to look at the bios of our attorneys in the group and reach out to us with any questions.   Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 Atty. William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Attys. Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.

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

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.