New Associate Rachel Coles Joins Gallagher Sharp LLP

(NOVEMBER 17, 2020) – The law firm of Gallagher Sharp LLP is pleased to announce that Rachel L. Coles has joined the firm as an Associate.

Ms. Coles is a member of Gallagher Sharp’s General Litigation and Professional Liability Practice Groups. She defends attorneys in legal malpractice litigation, and businesses, insurance carriers, and individuals against claims alleging personal injury, property damage, occupational injury, and wrongful death. Her experience includes auto accidents, premises liability, government and public entity liability, professional liability, and other tort litigation.

Ms. Coles received her law degree, summa cum laude, from The University of Akron School of Law, where she served as Executive Editor of Production of AkronLaw Review.  She received her undergraduate degree, summa cum laude, from West Liberty University.  She is a member of the Ohio State and Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Associations.

Gallagher Sharp is a trial and business practice firm focused on the defense of civil claims and lawsuits for corporations, insurance companies and their policyholders. The firm's areas of experience include general litigation, business and employment, insurance, transportation, professional liability, product liability, mass torts, and appellate law.  Founded in 1912, the firm’s main office is located at 1215 Superior Avenue, 17^th Floor, and has offices in Columbus, Toledo, and Detroit, Michigan. 

For further information, please contact Jeanne Kostelnik, Director of Client Services, at 216-522-1082. - (Gallagher Sharp LLP)

New Associate Jennifer Gardner Joins Gallagher Sharp LLP

(NOVEMBER 17, 2020) – The law firm of Gallagher Sharp LLP is pleased to announce that Jennifer L. Gardner has joined the firm as an Associate.

Ms. Gardner defends businesses, insurance carriers, and individuals against claims for breach of contract, personal injury, property damage, and wrongful death. She also has experience with contract drafting and review, compliance with federal employment regulations, and complex environmental litigation.

Ms. Gardner received her law degree from American University, Washington College of Law, and her undergraduate degree from John Carroll University.  She is a member of the Ohio State and Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Associations, and serves as an OBEST Lecturer for Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and on the Board of Directors of the John Carroll University Alumni Association. 

Gallagher Sharp is a trial and business practice firm focused on the defense of civil claims and lawsuits for corporations, insurance companies and their policyholders. The firm's areas of experience include general litigation, business and employment, insurance, transportation, professional liability, product liability, mass torts, and appellate law.  Founded in 1912, the firm’s main office is located at 1215 Superior Avenue, 17^th Floor, and has offices in Columbus, Toledo, and Detroit, Michigan. 

For further information, please contact Jeanne Kostelnik, Director of Client Services, at 216-522-1082. - (Gallagher Sharp LLP)

Folluo Elected to Board of Regents of the American College of Trial Lawyers

Dan Folluo, Partner Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable, PLLC

(OCTOBER 5, 2020) - Dan Folluo, a Partner of Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable, PLLC was recently elected to a four year term as a member of the Board of Regents of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He will be the Regent for Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. The Board of Regents is the governing body of the College.  John H. Tucker of Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable is very proud of Dan for this distinguished recognition. (Rhodes, Hieronmyus, Jones, Tucker & Gable, PLLC)

Maryland Abandons the Frye-Reed Standard for Admissibility of Expert Testimony and Adopts Daubert

(SEPTEMBER 25, 2020) -  Over 40 years ago, in the case of Reed v. State, Maryland adopted the general acceptance standard for admitting expert testimony rooted in novel scientific principles.  283 Md. 374 (1978).  Under this standard, expert testimony rooted in novel scientific principles was admissible only if the basis of the opinion was generally accepted as reliable within the relevant scientific community.  This standard was commonly called the Frye-Reed standard.  In the years that followed, and with the adoption of Maryland Rule 5-702, this standard morphed into what was known as the “Frye-Reed Plus” standard.  Under this morphed standard, the trial court was tasked with: (1) determining whether the expert’s principles and methods were generally accepted, and then (2) assessing whether the expert’s testimony had an adequate supply of data and applied a reliable methodology.        

In Rochkind v. Stevenson, the Maryland Court of Appeals abandoned the Frye-Reed standard in favor of the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony. 2020 Md. LEXIS 414 (August 28, 2020).  Under the Daubert standard, an expert’s testimony is admissible only if it is sufficiently reliable. To assist the trial courts in assessing the reliability of expert testimony, the Court adopted ten non-exhaustive factors:

(1) Tested/testable—whether the theory or technique can be (and has been) tested;
(2) Peer review—whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication;
(3) Error rate—whether the technique has a known or potential rate of error;
(4) Controls—the existence and maintenance of standards and controls;
(5) General acceptance—whether the theory or technique is generally accepted;
(6) Independence—whether the experts are testifying related to research conducted independent of litigation, or whether they developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying;
(7) Analytical gap—whether the expert unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion;
(8) Differential diagnoses—whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations;
(9) Diligence—whether the expert is being as careful as he or she would be in his or her regular professional work outside of paid litigation consulting;
(10) Reliable field—whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.
Id. at *48.

The extent to which this change in jurisprudence will have a practical impact on the admissibility of expert testimony is widely debated and remains to be seen.  The Court of Appeals was “[not] convinced that adopting this standard in Maryland will upend Maryland evidence law.” Id. at *46.  Regardless, the Rochkind opinion provides clear guidance as to what factors litigants, attorneys, and experts, should consider in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. - (DeCaro, Doran, Siciliano, Gallagher & DeBlasis)