Duane Morris partners Brian Pandya and Seth Rokosky represented the National Association of Manufacturers in its amicus brief encouraging the Federal Circuit to undo a lower court’s ruling that Moderna, and not the government, must face a multibillion-dollar patent infringement suit over its COVID-19 vaccine. The brief warned that if contractors can’t rely on the government when it commits to bearing the liability of patent infringement suits, it would undermine the government’s ability to procure manufactured goods that are vitally important for responding to national crises and for keeping the daily operations of government running. Read the amicus brief here.
Duane Morris Appellate Lawyers Recognized by Chambers USA
We are pleased to announce that three Duane Morris Appellate division lawyers have been recognized by Chambers USA.
Here’s what clients are saying about our appellate lawyers:
- “[Rob Byer’s] ability to synthesize complex issues into short, concise arguments, and his natural talents for the back and forth of an appellate proceeding are nothing short of amazing.”
- “Robert Palumbos is in the upper echelon of appellate lawyers. He is very intellectual and he has a complex practice.”
- “Benjamin Shatz is one of the best qualified appellate lawyers with whom I have had the pleasure of working.”
Los Angeles Lawyers
Benjamin Shatz: Litigation Appellate
Pittsburgh Lawyers
Robert L. Byer: Litigation: Appellate
Philadelphia Lawyers
Robert M. Palumbos: Litigation: Appellate
Avoiding Pitfalls: Jurisdictional Considerations for Appeals
By Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr.
The article explains that in New York, only “aggrieved” parties can appeal from proper, written orders or judgments within 30 days. Appeals must follow strict timing and procedural rules; missing deadlines usually results in dismissal. Courts can excuse minor errors, but proper filing and notice are crucial to keep the right to appeal.
Read the full article from the New York Law Journal on the Duane Morris LLP website.
Duane Morris Appellate Practice Named Finalist for Litigation Department of the Year – Specialty Practice by The Legal Intelligencer
The awards recognize the top specialty litigation departments, their record of success and impactful work in 2025. Read more about Duane Morris’ Appellate Practice and the award on the Duane Morris LLP website.
Staying Strong and Silent on Appeal
Sometimes the strongest litigation strategy is staying silent—strategically choosing not to respond to weak, irrelevant, or low-impact arguments can conserve client resources, preserve credibility, and let lawyers exercise independent judgment without undermining the case.
Read the full version of this month’s “Exceptionally Appealing” column from Partner Benjamin G. Shatz at the Daily Journal.
The ‘Aggrievement’ Requirement
In a New York Law Journal article, Thomas R. Newman & Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. , explain that only “aggrieved” parties—those harmed or denied relief—can appeal court decisions under CPLR 5511. Courts can assess aggrievement on their own, and simply disagreeing with a ruling isn’t enough. There are exceptions, like non-parties with affected interests or appeals on alternative grounds. Understanding these rules is crucial for proper appellate standing. Read the full article.
New Jersey Supreme Court Adopts “Merits Briefing” – What Practitioners Need to Know
By Robert M. Palumbos, Paul P. Josephson, Christopher H. Casey, Andrew R. Sperl and Justin G. Mignogna
In a February 26, 2026, notice, the Supreme Court of New Jersey announced sweeping amendments to the court rules governing briefing before the court. The new framework provides for merits briefing in all appeals taken on or after February 10, 2026. These changes represent the most significant overhaul of the court’s briefing procedures in years and carry important implications for appellate practitioners, amicus participants and anyone following the court’s docket.
Duane Morris’ Rob Byer Honored Again as Appellate “Lawyer of the Year” in Pittsburgh by Best Lawyers
Duane Morris partner Robert L. Byer has been recognized by Best Lawyers® as the “2024 Appellate Lawyer of the Year” in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The recognition is given to only one attorney for each practice area and city. Lawyers are selected based on high marks received during peer-review assessments conducted by Best Lawyers each year. He also received this distinction in 2020, 2016 and 2011.
Pa. Supreme Court to Reconsider Validity of Legal Malpractice Claims Based on Settlement Advice
In 1991, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court created a bright-line rule barring certain types of legal malpractice claims. Specifically, if a client settled a lawsuit but ultimately was unhappy with the settlement, the client could only sue her lawyers for legal malpractice if the lawyers fraudulently induced her to settle. See Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod, & Gutnick, 587 A.2d 1346, 1358 (Pa. 1991). In such situations, claims based on negligence or breach of contract would not be cognizable. Id.
This bright-line rule has slowly eroded over the years. In Collas v. Garnick, 624 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 1993), for example, the Superior Court held that Muhammad did not bar claims based on inaccurate legal advice related to a settlement agreement. In that case, a lawyer advised that certain language in a settlement agreement would not affect the client’s ability to sue other potentially liable parties, but that advice turned out to be wrong. Id. at 119. After the plaintiff’s second lawsuit was dismissed based on the release she signed when settling the first lawsuit, the plaintiff sued her lawyer. Id. The trial court held that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by Muhammad, but the Superior Court reversed. The Superior Court noted that Muhammad dealt with clients who were dissatisfied with the amount of the settlement, whereas the clients in Collas were complaining that they were misinformed as to the effect of the settlement. Id. at 121. The Superior Court held that, in such circumstances, lawyers could be liable for malpractice if they failed to exercise the necessary degree of care. Id.
The Superior Court has since clarified when Muhammad bars legal malpractice claims arising from a settlement agreement and when it does not:
[If] a dissatisfied litigant merely wishes to second guess his or her decision to settle due to speculation that he or she may have been able to secure a larger amount of money, i.e.[,] “get a better deal[,]” the Muhammad rule applies so as to bar that litigant from suing his counsel for negligence. If, however, a settlement agreement is legally deficient or if an attorney fails to explain the effect of a legal document, the client may seek redress from counsel by filing a malpractice action sounding in negligence.
Banks v. Jerome Taylor & Assocs., 700 A.2d 1329, 1332 (Pa. Super. 1997).
The Supreme Court will now consider doing away with Muhammad altogether as part of its review of the Superior Court’s decision in Khalil v. Williams, 244 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2021), allocatur granted 53 EAL 2021 (Pa. Aug. 3, 2021). In Khalil, the plaintiff claimed that she only signed the settlement agreement in question after asking her lawyers to add language making clear that her claims in a related lawsuit would not be affected. Khalil, 244 A.3d at 840-41. After the plaintiff signed the revised release, her counsel allegedly doctored the signed release to remove any limiting language. Id. Her claims thus sounded in fraud and were not barred by Muhammad. Id. Yet, the plaintiff also alleged legal malpractice claims based on negligence and breach of contract. While the plaintiff claimed on appeal that she pleaded facts alleging that her counsel gave incorrect advice about the legal effect of the settlement agreement in the alternative, the Superior Court disagreed. Id. The Superior Court found that the only allegations in the complaint supported the fraud claim, not any claims sounding in negligence or breach of contract. Id. at 841. The Superior Court thus affirmed the dismissal of those claims.
The Supreme Court has now agreed to consider two issues on appeal—whether the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded negligence or breach of contract and, if so, whether Muhammad continues to be valid. Depending on the Court’s outcome and reasoning, Khalil could prove to be very important for understanding both the pleading rules for legal malpractice claims in Pennsylvania, as well as the potential liability for lawyers when advising their clients to accept a settlement offer.
Developments in the Pennsylvania Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine
On August 24, Duane Morris partner Rob Palumbos will present a CLE webinar at the Pennsylvania Defense Institute about developments in the forum non conveniens doctrine in Pennsylvania. Over the last several years, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has been extremely active on this issue, issuing approximately two dozen new precedential decisions. For more information or to register, please visit the Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s website.