Kathy is a partner at Barley Snyder and a member of the firm’s Health Care Industry Group and Litigation Practice Group. In her more than 30 years of practice with Barley Snyder, Kathy has served as counselor and problem-solver for health care providers throughout central Pennsylvania, including hospitals and physicians, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospices, home health and home care agencies. She regularly defends health care providers in significant malpractice litigation and before the licensure boards.
Kathy uses her broad based expertise to guide providers through both every day problems and more serious issues, always with an eye toward future prevention. Experience has honed Kathy’s ability to find practical solutions to difficult problems without running afoul of regulations. Kathy has also worked with providers to create event evaluation processes which preserve relevant privileges to the greatest extent possible.
Kathy assists clients through all phases of policy making, including preparation, review and implementation in virtually all areas of health care practice. Kathy understands the importance of clarity and simplicity in policy making, and the need to incorporate what the review bodies need into a process which is functional for the provider.
Kathy has been defending health care providers in litigation across Central Pennsylvania throughout her entire career, including the most serious of cases involving adult brain injury and birth injuries. Her diverse health care practice gives her insight essential to effective representation of the providers in litigation and in the courtroom. Kathy also understands the stress these proceedings bring to the providers involved, and she is skilled at soothing nerves and bolstering confidence in the process of trial or deposition preparation. She puts these same skills to effective use when fostering licensed providers through a Department of State investigation and/or complaint.
Kathy counsels clients on a variety of health care issues, including:
Kathy was named to Central Penn Business Journal’s 2024 Women of Influence List based on her professional experience, community involvement and commitment to mentoring.
Silas Ruiz-Steele chairs Barley Snyder’s Immigration practice group. She has focused her practice exclusively on immigration and nationality law for more than 25 years, regularly counseling and assisting employers and their employees as well as private individuals in their immigration needs, including those skilled and highly trained in:
The Sciences
Engineering
Education
Health Care
Business
The Arts
As a corporate immigration law counselor, Silas assists employers in a variety of industries including health care, agribusiness, manufacturing, and gaming and hospitality, among others, in devising successful immigration programs to meet their needs. She represents employers in securing non-immigrant work visas for new hires and permanent residence for permanent personnel; multi-national companies in transferring their executives, managers or individuals with specialized knowledge; universities with foreign-born faculty, researchers, and graduates; and entrepreneurs forming start-up companies or re-locating to the U.S. in securing treaty-based visas.
Silas has extensive experience speaking and writing about business immigration matters, including visa-related topics, immigration compliance and strategic planning. She has provided guidance and training to corporate clients of all sizes, human resources professionals, supervisors and managers on worksite enforcement issues, IRCA compliance, I-9 employment verification matters, Social Security mismatch issues, and developed and implemented system-wide immigration policies and protocols.
In addition to her employment-based immigration work, Silas provides assistance in naturalization and family-based immigration matters including both immigrant visas (green cards) and non-immigrant visas (K1 fiancé(e)).
Silas is able to represent immigration clients in every jurisdiction of the U.S., handling matters before the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Labor and consulates worldwide.
Prior to joining the firm, Silas maintained her own immigration law practice, where she represented clients in matters involving Immigrant Visas through Adjustment of Status or Consular Processing, Temporary Work Visas such as those involving Treaty Traders and Investors, business visas such as B’s, F’s, H’s, L’s, O’s, and P’s, and naturalization. In addition, she provided guidance and training on employment verification procedures and immigration-related discrimination practices.
Having immigrated to the United States herself, Silas has personal experience with the complexities of the immigration process. With this experience in mind, she obtained her Juris Doctorate degree from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC. She frequently presents at seminars and has served as an invited guest speaker for professional associations and organizations on topics such as I-9 compliance and employer sanctions, immigration risk management for employers, and nonimmigrant and immigrant visa options and strategies for businesses and individuals. Silas is a member of the Florida State Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Society for Human Resources Management. Silas is fluent in Spanish and French.
Kate is a dedicated member of the firm’s Litigation, Real Estate, Hospitality and Liquor Law groups, in addition to being a licensed title agent. She brings extensive knowledge to her clients’ most complex legal challenges and takes the time to understand their needs, fostering strong, effective relationships.
Committed to achieving the best possible outcomes, Kate communicates clearly and works collaboratively, navigating the legal landscape with efficiency and integrity. A strong advocate for practical solutions, she ensures that her clients are well-informed about potential outcomes and resolution strategies from the outset. Kate regularly collaborates with a diverse group of clients, including restaurants, hotels, commercial retailers, brokers, property management companies, and non-profit organizations.
Litigation Kate focuses her practice primarily on litigation matters, specifically in the areas of commercial litigation, fiduciary litigation, real estate litigation, appellate litigation and construction litigation. She approaches every case with a personable, reasonable and strategic mindset. View a sampling of her representative cases below:
Commercial – Kate and team represented a railroad company in obtaining emergency injunctive relief against a landowner blocking the railroad company’s tracks. The railroad company had a right of way dating back to the 1800s when the railroad was first built. The landowner asserted multiple defenses including claims of abandonment and misuse. Ultimately, the York County Court of Common Pleas agreed that the railroad company had met the high burden of a preliminary injunction hearing and granted an order protecting the railroad’s continued use of the tracks.
– Kate successfully defended a multifamily housing developer in a bench trial in York County against a breach of contract and unjust enrichment claim brought by an architect who alleged our client failed to fulfill its contractual obligations. The architect’s claim could have exposed our client to over $150,000, including potential attorneys’ fees. Katelyn’s defense effectively dismissed all claims, securing a favorable verdict for her client and shielding them from both the alleged amount owed under the contract and the risk of attorney fee liability.
– Kate was successful in York County on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings wherein the client purchased a property which was subject to a reservation in a deed for the prior owner to continue receiving income from a Billboard Lease until the term ended. The prior owner tried to pull one over on the client by amending the Billboard Lease to allow for additional terms the year before the lease was set to end and the rights would be given back to our client. Ultimately, the Court agreed with our argument that the term in the lease was definite and the attempted new amended lease for an extended term was void. We were able to negotiate a lease with the prior renter for our client who will benefit over $150,000 from the lease.
Fiduciary – Kate and her team successfully represented the beneficiary of a trust in a complex dispute before the Mifflin County Orphans’ Court. The case involved multiple challenges, including a $250,000 claim based on an alleged common law marriage, which the court rejected after trial. Kate also secured favorable rulings on several intricate trust interpretation issues, yielding the beneficiary $2.6 million. The outcome was affirmed on appeal by both the Pennsylvania Superior and Supreme Courts.
Real Estate – Kate and team represented a shopping center owner in Dauphin County that was subject to a complete condemnation by PennDOT. After receiving a low offer for the eminent domain of property, the Barley team worked with an appraiser and were able to obtain a $4.55 million payment for the shopping center owner.
– Kate and team represented a non-profit health system in a tax assessment appeal in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas relative to a large medical complex. Despite the health system acquiring the medical complex for $45 million, the Barley team negotiated with the taxing authorities for a settlement at a $31 million fair market value. This settlement resulted in over $160,000 per year in tax savings for the health system.
Real Estate In her real estate practice, Kate covers a range of services, including commercial transactions, tax assessment appeals and exemptions, and commercial leasing. Her title agent license enhances her real estate work, offering a well-rounded perspective on each matter.
Liquor Law In the hospitality sector, Kate works closely with clients regarding their liquor law needs, assisting with licensing, renewals and enforcement matters. She thoroughly enjoys this niche area of her practice, guiding her clients through the complexities of liquor law.
Outside of the office, Kate is highly active in her community, serving on various boards of local nonprofit organizations. The West York native enjoys hitting the gym, spending time with her family, and indulging in her passion for baking.
Jayne primarily focuses her practice on municipal development, representing clients in zoning and land development matters. She handles complex land use issues such as variances, special exceptions, conditional uses, zoning appeals, and other land use matters for municipal and development clients. Jayne also has experience serving as Solicitor for several municipalities and general authorities in York County. In the realm of real estate, Jayne is well-versed in planned community representation, serving both developers and homeowner association boards. She further provides comprehensive legal support to individuals, guiding them through every phase of real estate acquisition, financing, operations, development and sales.
Jayne also maintains a small practice in estate planning and estate administration. She frequently assists clients with the preparation of basic estate planning documents including wills, powers of attorney and medical directives in addition to the administration of estates.
In her hospitality practice, Jayne has experience with the sales and acquisitions of hotels and guiding clients through the process of liquor license transfers. Furthermore, Jayne holds broad experience in general business law which consists of entity formations, review and negotiations of contracts and contract drafting.
Outside of the firm, Jayne serves on the Junior Board of the YWCA of Greater Harrisburg, a dynamic group of young women who raise awareness and funds in support of the organization’s mission and operations. In addition, Jayne was previously involved with volunteering for the Pennsylvania Immigration Resource Center in York to help provide “Know Your Rights” educational programs to immigration-related detainees in the York County Prison.
In her free time, Jayne enjoys playing the part of “Auntie Jay” to her five nieces and nephews, reading, spending time outdoors, traveling and cooking.
Stacey MacNeal is a member of Barley Snyder’s Real Estate Practice Group and chairs the firm’s Land Use team. She has over 25 years of experience practicing law. She regularly represents property owners and developers in all stages of real estate acquisition, financing, operations, development, and divestment. Stacey is also a licensed title agent in Pennsylvania and Maryland.
A primary section of her practice is land use and development, as she often represents residential developers, commercial developers, business owners and homeowners in front of municipal boards in south central Pennsylvania. Her work stretches through the regions, assisting her clients in front of municipal boards in York, Lancaster, Dauphin, Adams and Cumberland counties, in addition to work beyond those borders as well.
Stacey has experience shepherding complex development through all phases, including zoning, land development, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection approvals, and PennDOT processes. She prides herself on working to find creative solutions to ensure that development proceeds in a timely manner. She also has experience in unique real estate matters such as quiet title actions and eminent domain proceedings.
“Navigating the Subdivision Process”, Land Use and Zoning in Pennsylvania: From Application to Appeal Webinar, National Business Institute (December 2024)
“Navigating a Zoning Hearing: A Mock Hearing on Conditional Uses for Multi-Family Development,” – Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors’ Southcentral 2024 Regional Forum (November 2024)
“Navigating a Zoning Hearing: A Mock Hearing on Conditional Uses for Multi-Family Development,” – Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors’ Southeast 2024 Regional Forum (October 2024)
“Navigating a Zoning Hearing: A Mock Hearing on Conditional Uses for Multi-Family Development,” – Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors’ Lehigh Valley 2024 Regional Forum (October 2024)
Justin is a partner in the Litigation Practice Group. He assists businesses, institutions and individuals in identifying and managing litigation risk, resolving disputes and achieving their objectives. Justin navigates challenges on behalf of his clients in both state and federal courts in Pennsylvania, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Based on his strong local connections, he regularly serves as local counsel to assist attorneys in successfully navigating courts in the region. He also serves as outside general counsel to many small and midsize businesses in the region.
Justin focuses his practice in the areas of commercial litigation, real estate litigation, fiduciary litigation and banking litigation. Justin also routinely advises food & agribusiness clients relative to dispute resolution and risk management.
Commercial Litigation
Justin maintains a broad general commercial litigation practice where he assists clients with contractual disputes and collection matters throughout many industries. He has considerable experience representing business owners in a variety of bet-the-company cases and business divorce matters across many different industries. He also works on behalf of his clients in litigation involving non-compete agreements.
Representative cases:
– Defended one of the world’s largest social media companies in an Adams County court proceeding against claims related to the hacking of a customer’s social media account. The plaintiff customer sought to have the social media company found financially liable for the hacked account. After the plaintiff presented its case in court, Justin moved to dismiss the matter, citing several legal arguments. The court granted Justin’s motion, dismissing the case and advising the plaintiff that it “had brought a knife to a gun fight.”
– Represented a York County school district relative to a first impression dispute over a township electing to transfer from one school district to another. Justin represented the school district that was receiving the township and all of its students in a decade plus long dispute. The school district that lost the township from its district sought nearly $15 million from the Barley Snyder client as an allocation of indebtedness and also opposed it receiving nearly $1 million per year in state subsidies associated with having to serve all of the township’s students. In a resounding victory, Justin convinced the York County Court of Common Pleas to deny a single dollar of indebtedness allocation and also secured the receipt of the nearly $1 million per year of state subsidies.
– Represented a large Central Pennsylvania manufacturer that had received a defective interior coating project at its facility from a commercial painting contractor. The coating application had failed, causing peeling paint and mold in the facility. After Justin pursued recovery in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, the contractor paid $325,000 to settle the claims, which was approximately twice what the Barley Snyder client had paid for the interior coating project.
– Represented a large construction company relative to a complicated construction project for a large hotel in Washington, D.C. After the parties initiated multiple litigation matters in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. District Court and Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia with various claims and counterclaims, Justin obtained a summary judgment in excess of $2.6 million, in addition to attorneys’ fees.
– Represented a software maker in a contract dispute with a business partner. The business partner had tried to escape its long-term agreement with Justin’s client by claiming fictitious breaches of contract. After sending the business partner a complaint that the software maker intended to file, the business partner conceded and made a payment of $1.5 million to the software maker.
– Represented a construction materials company in a patent infringement matter in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The construction materials company had a proprietary technology that Barley Snyder’s intellectual property attorneys had previously helped protect. When a competitor began using an infringing design, Justin filed suit and fended off various efforts to have the matter dismissed. Ultimately, the competitor agreed to make a six-figure payment for its prior infringement and agreed to abandon its infringing design.
– Represented a large apartment complex owner in a multi-jurisdictional dispute involving one of its shareholders and prior executive. The dispute centered on the repayment of loans and included allegations of fraud against the prior executive. Justin initiated multiple actions in state and federal courts in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to recover for the multi-state conduct of the prior executive. Right before trial in one of the matters, the prior executive agreed to a seven-figure settlement payment to resolve the multiple claims.
– Represented a minority shareholder of a medical device company in a dispute with a majority shareholder in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The majority shareholder took steps to freeze Justin’s client out of the company. Justin immediately took efforts to prevent the freezeout through litigation and other tactics, forcing the majority shareholder into settlement negotiations where the client received a $3 million settlement payment.
– Represented an international manufacturing company in a dispute with a supplier in the York County Court of Common Pleas. The supplier alleged that the manufacturing company interfered with a contract, breached fiduciary duties, breached a contract, committed fraud and engaged in civil conspiracy, seeking $3.8 million in damages. Justin convinced the court to dismiss all claims against the client.
– Represented a physician covered by a disability insurance policy in a dispute in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The disability insurance company refused to make a full payment as represented to the physician under the policy. After Justin defeated the insurance company’s summary judgment attempt, the insurance company agreed to make payment of $300,000 to Justin’s client.
– Represented minority shareholders in a contentious dispute with the other shareholders. Justin’s clients were husband and wife founders of a successful manufacturing company. When the husband fell ill and required long term hospitalization, the other shareholders covertly attempted to freeze Justin’s clients out of the business through diluting their ownership interests. Justin intervened immediately by filing suit in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas and taking strategic actions to ensure that the company’s bank account could not be depleted by the other shareholders. Through applying pressure in litigation, Justin was able to secure a $1.5 million dollar settlement for his clients.
– Represented a minority shareholder in a manufacturing organization. The minority shareholder was concerned about the lack of information that the majority shareholder was sharing regarding the business operations and had concerns about the financial condition of the business. Justin conducted an investigation of the corporate records and financials and discovered that almost $400,000 had been improperly withheld from the entity for which Justin’s client owned an interest. Instead, the majority shareholder had retained the funds in separate entities which he controlled and was using those funds for his personal expenses. Justin negotiated the repayment of 100% of the amount owed to his minority shareholder client, plus interest. Justin also negotiated the purchase of his client’s interest in the company at an above market valuation and secured a generous severance package for the client to be able to retire from the company.
– Represented a shareholder of a construction company in a complex shareholder dispute. The shareholder owned 50% of the company with his co-owner, who passed away unexpectedly. The co-owner controlled the finances of the company and had brought the company to the brink of financial insolvency due to poor decision making. Despite this, the shareholder agreement permitted the co-owner’s estate to receive $2 million from a key man life insurance policy. By alleging fiduciary duty breaches by the co-owner, Justin helped negotiate for the client to receive $500,000 of the key man life insurance policy to reinvest in turning around the company. Several months later, the shareholder was able to return the company to profitability.
– Represented the owner of a helicopter leasing company to assist with the repossession of a helicopter from a challenging customer in Allegheny County. The customer was several months into a lease of a helicopter and stopped completing maintenance on the helicopter and refused to cooperate with the Federal Aviation Administration’s requests for inspections. Justin and his client carefully orchestrated and executed a strategy for repossessing the helicopter, which was chained down and mechanically disabled in a locked airport facility. After successfully repossessing the helicopter in the early morning hours, the customer filed a preliminary injunction motion in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas asking the court to force Justin’s client to return the helicopter. A preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled to occur only 72 hours after the motion was filed. After Justin filed a response threatening to seek attorney’s fees and other sanctions at the injunction hearing, the customer agreed moments before the hearing was to begin to withdraw its demand to have the helicopter returned.
– Represented the minority member of a limited liability company in a shareholder dispute matter, resulting in a multi-million dollar settlement for the client. The majority shareholder had frozen out the client as the company reported record profits. After a two-day hearing seeking injunctive relief, a judge granted the injunction extending beyond the relief historically awarded by courts in Pennsylvania. Almost immediately after the decision, the majority member settled the matter with a significant buyout payment to the client.
– Represented a professional services partnership and real estate partnership in a shareholder departure dispute. The departing shareholder filed an emergency petition for a special relief in the York County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a preliminary injunction related to the financial affairs of the partnerships. Justin filed preliminary objections, citing several provisions of the shareholder’s agreements that were contradictory to the departing shareholder’s claims. After a hearing on the preliminary objections, the court dismissed the petition seeking a preliminary injunction.
– Represented a company against a claim that it owed a manufacturer $130,000 for inventory it allegedly purchased. Based on the evidence and counterclaims presented at the arbitration hearing, Justin’s client was awarded judgment in its favor and the arbitrator actually awarded his client a monetary judgment against the manufacturer.
– Represented a railroad company in obtaining emergency injunctive relief against a landowner blocking the railroad company’s tracks. The railroad company had a right of way dating back to the 1800s when the railroad was first built. The landowner asserted multiple defenses including claims of abandonment and misuse. Ultimately, the York County Court of Common Pleas agreed that the railroad company had met the high burden of a preliminary injunction hearing and granted an order protecting the railroad’s continued use of the tracks.
Real Estate Litigation
Justin represents design professionals (including architects and engineers), builders, contractors and subcontractors in contract disputes, tax assessment appeals and land use appeals. He also represents landlords in both commercial and residential real estate litigation.
Representative cases:
– Justin was engaged by a company attempting to reach an agreement to sell its business for more than $30 million. When the agreement to sell the business was nearing completion, a commercial landlord for the business threatened to renege on a prior agreement as to the lease of the property and threatened immediate eviction, which would have threatened the sale. Justin initiated litigation to enforce the prior agreement for the lease terms which forced the matter to resolve within a matter of days with the commercial landlord recommitting to its prior agreement to lease the premises. The $30+ million agreement was then able to proceed with the security of a new long-term lease in place.
– Justin was hired on an emergency basis by a regional bank to fight off the threatened eviction of a bank from one of its leased branch locations. On a Saturday, a landlord threatened that upon the merger of two banks, the lease in effect was void and it would lock the doors to the bank on Monday morning. Within an hour of being alerted on a Saturday night, Justin was in the office preparing for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filing to stop the unwarranted action. After working through the night and all day Sunday, Justin was able to convince the landlord to stand down and not interfere with the lease.
– Represented a non-profit health system in a tax assessment appeal in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas relative to a large medical complex. Despite the health system acquiring the medical complex for $45 million, Justin negotiated with the taxing authorities for a settlement at a $31 million fair market value. This settlement resulted in over $160,000 per year in tax savings for the health system.
– Represented a large property owner in Dorchester County, Maryland in a partition action against a co-owner of a tract of land. The co-owner refused to sell its interest in the jointly owned property, so Justin initiated a partition action in the Circuit Court to force the sale of the tract. After a trial, which included several challenges to the title of the property and the right to partition, the court concluded that Justin’s client was entitled to have the property partitioned and entered a verdict in its favor.
– Represented a shopping center owner in Dauphin County that was subject to a complete condemnation by PennDOT. After receiving a low offer for the eminent domain of property, Justin worked with an appraiser and was able to obtain an $4.55 million payment for the shopping center owner.
– Secured a large settlement for a commercial landlord after damage was caused by the retailer tenant on its turnover of the property. Justin represented a national commercial retail landlord who had rented a property for several decades to a consumer goods retailer. When the retailer turned over the property, it was required by the lease to leave the property in good condition. The original estimate that Justin’s client had for the damage was $820,000. Through pressure applied by various litigation tactics in the York County Court of Common Pleas, Justin was able to secure the client a settlement of $775,000.
– Represented a property owner in contesting a mechanic’s lien action filed by an equipment company. Justin’s clients were developing a commercial property for a sports complex. Their contractor walked off the project without completing and having failed to pay subcontractors, including an equipment rental company. The equipment rental company filed a lien on the property for approximately $50,000. Justin immediately moved to strike that lien, making the argument that rented equipment was not lienable under Pennsylvania law. Although that issue had not been previously decided by a Pennsylvania court, Justin convinced the Adams County Court of Common Pleas that the equipment did not have the attributes of items that could be traditionally lienable. After oral argument, the court agreed with Justin’s position and terminated the lien.
– Represented a faith based non-profit organization in York County in a challenge by a local school district of the organization’s tax-exempt status. The school district had challenged the organization’s exemption based on allegations that the organization competed with for-profit organizations for certain services. Justin helped convince the school district to withdraw its challenge, which resulted in the return to the organization of over $100,000 in taxes.
– Represented a private student housing developer in a tax assessment appeal. After the York County Board of Assessment Appeals refused to reduce the $2.7 million assessment of the property, Justin appealed the decision to the York County Court of Common Pleas. After the parties exchanged appraisals, the municipality agreed to reduce the assessment by nearly $1 million, resulting in significant tax savings of over $225,000 for the developer over the next five years.
– Represented a nonprofit regional healthcare system in pursuing a real estate tax exemption for one of its hospitals. The local school district challenged the exemption on the basis that the healthcare system did not meet the statutory requirements for a charitable real estate tax exemption under Pennsylvania law. In response, Justin cited the extensive charitable care provided by the healthcare system as well as its compliance with the highly complex statutory requirements for a charitable exemption. After a two-day trial, the York County Court of Common Pleas granted a full exemption for the property and confirmed the system’s positive contributions to community health. The school district has appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. The decision resulted in millions of dollars of tax savings.
– Represented the owner of one of the most valuable properties in a suburban Philadelphia county in a tax assessment appeal. On the day before trial, Justin brokered a settlement that reduced the tax valuation of the property by nearly $12 million, amounting to considerable tax savings for the client.
– Represented a commercial real estate developer in an appeal involving its attempt to construct private college housing. The developer had obtained final approval of its land development plan, only to see the municipality change the zoning ordinance and join in an appeal of neighboring landowners against the development. After successfully appealing an adverse initial trial court decision to Commonwealth Court, Justin persuaded the trial court to allow the development to be constructed with minor changes. Based on the evidence presented to the court, the judge also ruled that the municipality acted in bad faith.
– Presented oral argument before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in support of a favorable outcome Barley Snyder obtained for a York City industrial property owner in a tax assessment appeal. The trial court’s conclusion on the value of the property represented a six-figure tax savings for the property owner over the next several years. After oral argument, the state affirmed the trial court’s tax reduction.
– Represented a large homebuilder relative to a claim by a family that their child received lead poisoning as a result of certain conditions in their home. The family was seeking more than $400,000 in damages. Justin conducted discovery and depositions that revealed both factual and contract-based reasons why the homebuilder was not responsible for the alleged injuries. Upon filing a motion for summary judgment, the York County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the homebuilder from the case while allowing the family to pursue other defendants for any injuries.
Fiduciary Litigation
Justin assists trust companies, banks and individuals with guardianships and disputes involving wills, powers of attorney and estate administration.
Representative cases:
– Represented the beneficiary of an estate in York County. The beneficiary’s late mother had instructed her financial advisor to change her beneficiary designations and the financial advisor failed to properly do so. The result was a $1.8 million going to the wrong beneficiaries and a serious negative tax consequence to Justin’s client. Justin convinced the York County Court of Common Pleas-Orphans Court Division, to correct the designations. Despite challenges by other prospective beneficiaries and the state, the court agreed to reform the beneficiary designations in favor of Justin’s client.
– Represented a widow who was locked out of her late husband’s bitcoin account which held over $200,000. The bitcoin service refused to provide those funds to the widow and indicated that the ability to recover such funds would become impossible if action was not taken quickly. Justin promptly filed a petition in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas-Orphan’s Court Division, which ordered the bitcoin service to release the funds to the widow.
– Represented the beneficiary of a trust in a complicated dispute in the Mifflin County Orphans Court. Justin convinced the judge to favorably resolve several complex trust interpretations, yielding their client $2.6 million. The opposing beneficiary appealed the matter to both the Pennsylvania Superior and Supreme Courts which upheld the trial court outcome.
– Represented a beneficiary of a Maryland estate. Concerns arose regarding the beneficiary’s brother’s handling of estate proceeds. Within 24 hours of Justin’s involvement, the beneficiary’s brother acceded to Justin’s clients demands and entered into an agreement to repay an additional $250,000 to Justin’s client.
– Represented the executor of an estate in a contentious will contest dispute with his brother over his father’s estate. After Justin’s client went to probate his father’s will, his brother surfaced with a purported alternative will/contract that he claimed entitled him to a larger share of the estate. At a trial before the Berks County Court of Common Pleas- Orphan’s Court Division, using various evidentiary rules, Justin successfully precluded the brother from providing a shred of testimony at trial. After the trial and a post-trial oral argument, the court ruled in favor of Justin’s client, dismissing the brother’s attempts to overturn the original will.
– Represented two beneficiaries of their late aunt’s estate. The beneficiaries’ aunt had passed away in 2005, but the estate administration was delayed for over a decade by the executor of the estate. The beneficiaries asked Justin to investigate when their proposed distributions seemed to be far less than anticipated. When Justin’s initial demand for information on the finances of the estate was ignored, Justin initiated an accounting action in the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas’ Orphan’s Court Division. After having the court-ordered production of the finances, Justin uncovered that over nearly $300,000 had been misappropriated by the executor and used to fund the executor’s business for the past decade. Justin negotiated the immediate return of 100% of the misappropriated funds at a heightened interest rate and payment by the executor of all attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in uncovering the misappropriation. The total amount recovered by Justin’s clients totaled nearly $500,000.
– Represented the beneficiary of an estate in a will contest dispute with his stepsisters in Berks County. Upon the death of their client’s father, no will could be found and pursuant to Pennsylvania’s intestacy laws, Justin’s client would have received the entire estate. However, the stepsisters surfaced and alleged that their stepfather had created a handwritten will that split his estate equally among his son and the stepsisters. At trial, Justin’s cross examination exposed the flaws in both the stepsisters’ testimony and the purported handwritten will. The judge entered a decision rejecting the handwritten will and affirming Justin’s clients would be the sole beneficiary of the six-figure estate.
– Represented the beneficiary of the estate of his late mother. Justin’s client’s late mother’s will left her assets to her son and had appointed her accountant to serve as executor and trustee of her estate proceeds. However, when the mother had unexpectedly passed away, a large portion of her funds from a real estate transaction were held in a joint account owned by the late mother and her accountant. The accountant suggested that under the Pennsylvania Multi-Party Account Act, the funds in the account belonged to the accountant, not the son. Justin quickly compiled a petition to force the accountant to turn the over the funds. In response, the accountant reversed course and agreed that she no longer was going to claim that she wanted the funds, but she now wanted to serve as trustee of the trust created to benefit the son by the late mother’s will. Justin pushed back again and demanded that based on the accountant’s actions, she should have no role in the estate. After threatening further litigation, the accountant completely backed down and turned over all of the funds and abandoned all involvement with the trust.
– Defended different professional guardians in two actions in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas – Orphans Court Division seeking to remove them from their appointment. In one case, two of the four children alleged that the guardian was overbilling the estate and not providing sufficient communication. In the other matter, one of the four children was challenging the guardian’s decision to keep her mother living in the family home, rather than a nursing facility. In both cases, Justin secured orders that maintained the guardians in place despite the allegations, which were discounted by the court.
– Successfully defended an executor in response to a petition to remove that executor in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas – Orphan’s Court Division. Two children of the decedent alleged that the executor had mismanaged funds and items of personal property. Justin responded aggressively to the allegations as false and misleading. At the hearing, the court dismissed the case without the need for the executor to put on any evidence. The court also awarded sanctions in favor of the executor.
– Successfully represented an individual in a contempt hearing in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas. The contempt hearing arose from a dispute between a recently divorced couple regarding payment obligations for their child’s college tuition. In response to the husband’s petition for contempt, Justin was retained to represent the wife in defense of the petition. After a hearing, the court dismissed the husband’s petition without the need for the wife to put on any evidence, finding that the wife was not in contempt of the separation agreement.
– Represented the power of attorney agent for an incapacitated individual. The agent had been appointed by his father to watch over his financial affairs and medical care. The agent’s sister attempted to have the agent removed by the York County Court of Common Pleas-Orphans’ Court division. Justin presented a defense which included exposing the sister’s intent to have herself replaced as the agent for her father, wherein she would pay herself significant payments for her services. After an emergency hearing, the court dismissed the sister’s petition and reaffirmed Justin’s client as the valid power of attorney agent.
– Represented the beneficiary of a trust after the trustee misappropriated nearly $200,000 in trust funds over the course of several years. Justin uncovered that the trustee was making unauthorized loans from the trust to himself and his business and was not repaying those loans. Justin successfully petitioned the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas-Orphans’ Court Division to remove the trustee and hold him in contempt of court. Justin also involved the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office’s Elder Abuse Division to conduct a parallel investigation, which resulted in a guilty plea, a restitution order, and the trustee being imprisoned.
– Represented an estate in a preliminary injunction matter brought by a beneficiary. The beneficiary of the multi-million dollar estate claimed that he was entitled to certain water rights on a property he owned neighboring the property owned by the estate. Justin defended the matter aggressively for the estate, and at the preliminary injunction hearing, obtained a non-suit dismissal of the case after the presentation of the beneficiary’s evidence.
– Represented the beneficiaries of a trust for the collection of an inter-family undocumented loan in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas. Justin navigated a complex set of facts and evidentiary issues, including that the initial balance of the loan having been incurred 30 years before and that the only surviving party to the loan with capacity was the debtor himself. The debtor argued that the loan was a gift, instead of a loan. The debtor also filed a cross claim against his ex-wife, who was one of the beneficiaries of the trust, claiming that she was responsible for any loan balance. After a trial, the judge confirmed the existence of the loan and awarded Justin’s client a $72,500 judgment. The judge also dismissed the cross claim against the ex-wife beneficiary, finding that she was not liable under the loan.
– Represented a guardian overseeing an elderly individual with significant assets. For years, the children of the individual battled over control of their mother’s assets by challenging her incapacity finding, often resulting in monthly orphan’s court proceedings. After convincing the trial court to maintain the incapacity finding and maintain the guardianship intact, the children took the appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. After Justin argued before the appellate panel, the decision of the trial court was affirmed.
– Represented a client in an action to recover her interest in a property she owned with her ex-husband. The ex-husband refused to sell the property or make payment to his ex-wife. His attorney raised various legal defenses to the sale or liquidation of the property. However, a trial court rejected the ex-husband’s defenses and ordered the property to be sold or the ex-wife’s interest liquidated. In response to the court’s order, the ex-husband made payment to the ex-wife in the amount of $120,000.
– Helped represent a widow in a claim to obtain a share of her deceased husband’s IRA account. The widow’s stepchildren had contested her right to receive these funds. The stepchildren appealed the trial court decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court where Justin successfully defended the trial court’s decision in a case of first impression at the appellate level. The client received close to $200,000 as a result of the victory.
– Represented the beneficiary of a trust in a trust dispute in the Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas-Orphan’s Court Division. An individual surfaced to challenge a portion of the beneficiary’s inheritance, claiming that a common law marriage entitled the individual to a $250,000 share of that inheritance. After the individual presented his evidence in support of the common law marriage at trial, Justin convinced the court to dismiss his claims and find in favor of the beneficiary.
Banking Litigation
Justin represents financial institutions in prosecuting and defending against various claims related to cybersecurity, external fraud and the Uniform Commercial Code, among others. Justin also represents financial institutions in addressing legal process issues, including responding to subpoenas and garnishments.
Representative cases:
– Secured dismissal of a banking client from a claim in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a customer alleging that the bank had improperly frozen and terminated the customer’s bank account. The customer was a publicly elected official engaged in inappropriate activity relative to the account, which held public funds. Shortly after the customer filed the complaint which sought millions of dollars for recovery, Justin filed a motion to dismiss which the court granted. This allowed for early disposal of the case without need for discovery or a trial.
– Secured summary judgment in a case with over $1 million in exposure for a banking client. A real estate development customer of the bank alleged that the bank failed to timely record a mortgage satisfaction piece for a property once encumbered by mortgages from the bank. The developer filed suit seeking a judgment of $1,025,000 from the bank under the Mortgage Satisfaction Act. After conducting targeted discovery, the court accepted the bank’s argument that the developer had failed to comply with certain provisions of the Mortgage Satisfaction Act and the bank had also acted in good faith. Upon consideration of competing summary judgment motions from the bank and the developer, the court promptly granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the developer’s claims. The developer appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and the decision was upheld.
– Represented a bank in a case that had been appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by a mortgagor following a successful motion for summary judgment in a foreclosure action in Mifflin County involving a large commercial tract. On appeal, the mortgagor alleged several substantive and procedural defects to the loan and asked the Pennsylvania appellate courts to reverse the summary judgment order. After unsuccessfully appealing to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the mortgagor asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to take the case. After Justin defended the decision of the Superior Court and trial court in its response, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the mortgagor’s appeal and found in favor of the bank.
– Represented a national bank in a claim brought in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas by a secondary beneficiary of a six-figure IRA held by the bank. The beneficiary petitioned the court asking for an order forcing the bank to ignore the beneficiary designation’s instructions which required the funds be issued to a trust. The beneficiary also asked the court to sanction the bank for refusing to cooperate with the proposed bypass of the primary beneficiary. Once retained by the bank, Justin convinced the beneficiary only days before the hearing to withdraw his petition and acknowledge that the IRA funds would only be payable to the primary beneficiary.
A prolific trial attorney and counselor, Josh is a partner in the firm’s Litigation and Employment practice groups working primarily in employment counseling and litigation, labor law and workers’ compensation.
He represents public and private employers in litigation matters, administrative agency investigations, labor arbitrations and commercial litigation. Josh also serves as Assistant General Counsel for the firm.
Employment Counseling and Litigation Josh protects employers inside and outside of the courtroom on issues related to employee discipline and termination, workplace harassment, noncompetition and non-solicitation, whistleblower claims, wage-and-hour compliance, and medical leaves of absence. He also chairs the firm’s Workers’ Compensation practice, using his knowledge to guide employers in managing workers’ compensation claims, proactively addressing safety protocols, and offering risk management advice. Throughout his career, Josh has presented at numerous seminars and groups on employee safety, harassment, medical marijuana, and other compliance and risk management topics.
Labor Josh provides clients with NLRB/union organizing training and counsels employers through union organizing campaigns. Josh also represents a number of unionized workplaces and is an experienced advocate during contract negotiation and grievance arbitration. He is also a trained and certified mediator.
Higher Education Litigation and Counseling Josh provides comprehensive counseling and training to administrators on student rights and disciplinary issues governed by federal and state laws, including Title IX, Title VI, the ADA, FERPA and others. He assists colleges in creating Title IX-compliant sexual misconduct policies, conducts internal investigations, and offers guidance on faculty matters. Josh has also represented higher education institutions in court and in legal proceedings before the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.
General Litigation Josh handles a broad spectrum of commercial litigation, intellectual property/patent litigation, and appellate litigation matters. He has experience representing clients in complex commercial disputes regarding contract disputes, business ownership issues, non-compete/non-solicitation agreement matters, and more. As chair of the firm’s Appellate Practice, Josh brings extensive experience in handling appeals, including preservation of issues during and after trial, drafting appellate briefs, and advocacy through oral argument.
Josh lives in Manheim Township with his wife, Franklin & Marshall College professor Carey Faulkner, and their two children, Eli and Casey. He can also be seen performing in community theater productions and cabarets throughout central Pennsylvania.
Stephanie is a dedicated member of the firm’s Litigation and Finance & Creditors’ Rights practice groups, known for her prompt and attentive service, and unwavering commitment to securing the best possible outcomes for her clients.
Stephanie concentrates her practice in the area of litigation, with a focus on commercial, banking, special counsel, tax assessment and land use law, as well as commercial workout litigation. She has handled commercial litigation on behalf of businesses across a variety of industries, banks, school districts, insurance companies, municipalities and municipal authorities. Her experience in commercial litigation and land use law involves business disputes, lender liability, construction claims, tax assessment appeals, zoning disputes, discrimination and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims.
Stephanie has also represented various financial institutions with respect to collection matters, as well as litigation over commercial lending transactions and lender liability actions.
Stephanie has tried cases in front of federal and state courts, as well as in front of administrative panels such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board, Board of Claims, Public Utility Commission, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Support Masters, Custody Conciliators and Divorce Masters.
While she pursued her law degree at Villanova University, she worked as a psychiatric assistant for care of children and teens at a Lebanon County inpatient behavioral health care facility.
Centerior Service Company v. Acme Scrap Iron; Metal Corporation: Cost Recovery or Contribution in the Sixth Circuit?
Fundamental Change In Waste Disposal Law: The Supreme Court Issues A Decision Making It Much Easier For Government To Require Waste Disposal At Specific Public Landfills Despite Increased Costs To Consumer
Talkin’ Trash – What Happens Here, Stays Here
Who Decides What Constitutes a Public Charity? (January 2013)
Josh is a partner in the firm’s Litigation and Creditors’ Rights Practice Groups and leads the firm’s injunction practice. He is a commercial litigator, equally adept at negotiating a common sense solution, navigating alternative dispute resolution (mediation or arbitration), or advocating his clients’ interests at all stages and manner of litigation. Josh handles both prosecution and defense of emergency/special and preliminary injunctions. He has tried cases in state, federal and military courts.
Commercial Litigation Represents businesses and individuals in contract, collections, judgment enforcement and business tort litigation, and restrictive covenant cases involving non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements.
Real Estate Litigation Represents commercial and residential property owners, developers and landlords in lease disputes, evictions, deed and restrictive covenant actions.
Construction Litigation Represents owners, contractors, subcontractors, architects and engineers in construction contract and design/defect matters.
Casualty and General Liability Litigation Represents businesses and property owners and in personal injury, indemnity and premises liability actions, and leading the defense of premises liability claims for a major Pennsylvania health care institution.
Prior to joining the firm, Josh served as Captain and Trial Counsel with the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps and as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he prosecuted misdemeanor and felony criminal trials. Prior to college, Josh served as an Airborne Ranger and rifle team leader with 3rd Ranger Battalion and the 25th Infantry Division (Light) Hawaii, deploying for Operation Uphold Democracy and the subsequent U.N. Mission in Haiti in 1995, and for training to Australia and the Republic of Korea.
Joe Falcon is an intellectual property lawyer with deep knowledge in patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright law. As a registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office patent attorney, Joe is recognized for his comprehensive understanding of intellectual property rights and his ability to provide strategic legal counsel to clients in diverse industries.
With an unwavering passion for the intersection of law and innovation, Joe focuses on all aspects of patent and trademark law, including prosecution, licensing, litigation, validity and infringement studies, and IP-related business counseling. He is a valued member of the Intellectual Property and Litigation practice groups, leveraging his skills and knowledge to assist clients at every stage of their intellectual property journey.
Joe’s clientele ranges from early-stage startups to established companies, and he is known for developing and commercializing patent portfolios tailored to meet the specific business needs of his clients. He works closely with his clients, understanding their goals and helping them navigate the complexities of intellectual property law to protect their innovations and maximize their market advantage.
Throughout his career, Joe has consistently demonstrated his ability to handle a wide range of complex intellectual property cases. He brings a meticulous approach to protecting the intellectual property rights of his clients. Some notable examples of his work include:
Asserting Patent Rights Against Willful Infringers: Joe has built a strong reputation for vigorously asserting patent rights on behalf of his clients in highly competitive marketplaces. He has successfully navigated intricate legal landscapes to hold those accountable who willfully infringe on his clients’ patents. Joe’s strategic and assertive approach ensures that his clients’ innovations are safeguarded and receive the recognition and compensation that they deserve.
Expert Counsel for Startups: Recognizing the unique challenges faced by startups, Joe provides invaluable guidance on ownership and procurement of patent and trademark rights. His deep understanding of intellectual property law and extensive experience allows him to advise startups on how to strategically protect their innovations while considering budgetary constraints. Joe’s insightful counsel helps startups establish a strong foundation for growth and navigate the complex landscape of intellectual property.
Crafting Research and Development Agreements: Joe is able to craft comprehensive research and development agreements that address the intricate issues of IP ownership. He works closely with clients to ensure that their rights are protected, both during the collaborative research process and in the subsequent commercialization of innovations. By drafting well-defined agreements, Joe helps his clients avoid disputes and maintain control over their intellectual property assets.
Patent Due Diligence in International Acquisitions: In the context of large-scale international acquisitions, Joe’s expertise in conducting thorough patent due diligence is an invaluable resource to clients. He meticulously examines the intellectual property portfolios of target companies, assessing the strength and scope of their patents. By identifying any potential risks or opportunities, Joe provides his clients with the information needed to make informed decisions during the acquisition process, mitigating future legal challenges and maximizing the value of the transaction.
Developing Robust IP Portfolios: Understanding the importance of proactively protecting clients’ intellectual property, Joe specializes in developing robust IP portfolios. He works closely with clients to identify and capture innovative ideas, strategically filing patents and trademarks to ensure comprehensive coverage. By actively monitoring the competitive landscape, Joe helps his clients stay ahead of potential design-arounds, effectively safeguarding their intellectual property assets and maintaining a competitive edge.
Trademark Enforcement: Joe has successfully represented clients in protecting their trademark rights against domestic and foreign entities in the United States and abroad through a network of foreign associates.
Post-Grant Proceedings: Joe is well-versed in post-grant proceedings, which provide an avenue for challenging the validity or scope of existing patents. Whether it involves defending the validity of a patent, challenging the validity of a competitor’s patent, or seeking to correct and enhance the scope of an existing patent, Joe’s unique perspective ensures that clients receive comprehensive representation and guidance throughout the post-grant proceeding process.
Copyright: Whether it’s registering copyrights, addressing ownership and licensing matters, handling infringement cases, or advising on fair use and compliance, Joe’s in-depth knowledge and strategic counsel allow clients to navigate the complexities of copyright law with confidence. With his guidance, clients can protect their creative works, monetize their intellectual property assets, and effectively enforce their rights in the dynamic landscape of the digital age.
Joe’s performance in the field of intellectual property law have earned him the respect of clients and peers alike. His commitment to delivering exceptional legal counsel, combined with his comprehensive understanding of the intricacies of intellectual property rights, make him an invaluable asset to any individual or organization seeking to protect and leverage their innovations in today’s dynamic business landscape.
Beyond his professional achievements, Joe cherishes his family life. Originally from Pittsburgh, he currently resides in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, with his wife Laurie, their three daughters, two dogs, and two cats. In his leisure time, Joe is an avid golfer who enjoys hitting the links, and during the winter months, he can be found snowboarding down the slopes, embracing his adventurous spirit.
American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law (ABA-IPL):
– Vice Chair of the USPTO Ex Parte Patent Practice and Policy Committee
– Member of the Amicus Brief Committee
– Liaison to the ABA-IPL Section of Litigation
“Things to Consider When Bringing AI into Your Legal Practice”, Patsnap Webinar (June 2024)
“Legal Tech Talk for Your 21st Century Business”, BIG U 2018 (May 2018)
“Common Legal Issues You Need to Know”, PA Treasury’s Small Business Initiative at York College (October 2016)
“Legal Issues Involved in Growing your Business “, PA Treasury’s Small Business Initiative at York College (October 2016)
“Common Legal Issues for New Businesses”, PA Treasury’s Small Business Initiative at York College (October 2016)
“Outside the Box Innovations v. Travel Caddy: Can Minor Infractions be Inequitable Conduct?” Joint Patent Practice Continuing Legal Education” (April 2013)
“Managing Intellectual Property Rights: The Cost of Innovation,” Duquesne Business Law Journal, Spring 2004, 6 Duq. Bus.L.Rev., No.2.
Get in Touch
Our attorneys, paralegals and staff look forward to hearing from you. Please reach out to let us know how we can help.
Emailing an attorney shall not and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the attorney and users of this web site or any other party whatsoever. An attorney-client relationship is ONLY established through a written engagement, and only where doing so would comply with all applicable laws and ethical rules.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION:
Transmission of information on-line, over email, or through any electronic means can be unstable, unreliable and insecure. You should not send information or facts via e-mail relating to your legal problem or question. If you do not have an existing attorney-client relationship, your e-mail may not be privileged or confidential.
By clicking ‘OK’ below, you are agreeing to the terms of this web site.