Attorney Profile:

Laurianne Falcone

Laurianne Falcone: Attorney with Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.
  • Shareholder at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C. (510 Attorneys)
  • 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300, Philadelphia, PA 19103
    View Laurianne Falcone's office location
  • Laurianne Falcone is a shareholder with Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Laurie splits her time among two practice areas. She handles premises liability matters for retail facilities, daycare centers, amusement parks, and individuals. Laurie is also a certified arbitrator in Philadelphia.
  • Peer Reviews 4.6/5.0 7 Reviews
    Peer Reviews (7 Reviews)
    4.6/5.0
    Client Reviews No reviews

Biography

Laurie handles premises liability matters for retail facilities, daycare centers, amusement parks, homeowners and businesses involving personal injury matters and governmental entities. Laurie is also a certified arbitrator in Philadelphia.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Laurie served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gene D. Cohen in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County where she wrote judicial opinions, observed trials, and prepared lecture materials for the National Judicial College.

Laurie is a graduate of Temple University School of Law and Ursinus College.

Classes/Seminars Taught

The Art of the Deposition, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, June 2015

Premises Liability Litigation: Focus on the Slip, Trip and Fall Case, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, November 2014

Trying a Case in State Court from Start to Finish, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, July 2012, June 2014

Preservation of Evidence--Counsel's Responsibility?, Defense Research Institute 15th Annual Personal Injury Potpourri, Philadelphia, PA, April 16, 2013

Handling the Slip Trip & Fall, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Winter 2012, August 2010

Pennsylvania's New Joint and Several Liability Law, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, October 2011

Premises Liability Seminar, Pennsylvania Association for Justice, 2010

How the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 Will Impact our Practice, May 26, 2009

Accident Documentation and Investigation, 2007 to present

Published Works

• Production of Surveillance Evidence in Personal Injury Cases, The Legal Intelligencer, Personal Injury Supplement, November 22, 2016

•“It's All About the Timing...A Guide to Producing Surveillance Evidence of the Plaintiff in Personal Injury Cases,” Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 3, September 2016

• Managing a Litigation Practice From a Woman's Perspective, The Pennsylvania Lawyer, July-August, 2014

• Let's Spare Some Trees - Standard Discovery Requests in Philadelphia Arbitration Cases, Defense Digest, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2005

• With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies? Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2004

• The Jury Can Only Follow the Instructions It's Given: An Analysis of Vallone v. Creech, Defense Digest, Vol. 9, No. 3, September 2003

Honors & Awards

•Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star, 2005-2008, 2013-2015

The 2016 Super Lawyers list is issued by Thompson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Year Joined Organization

2001

Events

The Dispute Resolution Institutes 15th Annual Personal Injury Potpourri
Seminar Apr 16, 2013

Topics include: Confidential Insight into the Sandusky case; PA Civil Litigation Update; Automobile Appellate Watch; Important Tips for Product Cases; Courtroom Conduct that Jurors Dislike; Deposing the Independent Witness; Unique Technology...

Publications

Production of Surveillance Evidence in Personal Injury Cases
Articles November 18, 2016

It's All About the Timing...A Guide to Producing Surveillance Evidence of the Plaintiff in Personal Injury Cases
Defense Digest Article September 1, 2016

By Laurianne Falcone, Esq.*Key Points:The production of surveillance evidence to opposing counsel depends on discovery requests and timing.The trial judge has latitude to admit or exclude surveillance evidence depending on the facts..., Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 3, September 2016. Defense Digest is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to...

Managing a Litigation Practice from a Woman's Perspective
Articles July 1, 2014

Areas of Practice (4)

  • Retail Liability
  • Amusement
  • Sports and Entertainment
  • Premises Liability - Defense

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
(215) 575-2715  Phone
(215) 575-0856  Fax
www.marshalldennehey.com
University Attended:
Ursinus College, B.A., English, 1997
Law School Attended:
Temple University School of Law, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, J.D., 2000
Admission:
2000, Pennsylvania; 2000, New Jersey; 2000, U.S. District Court District of New Jersey; 2002, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Memberships:

Associations & Memberships

•Pennsylvania Bar Association
•Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel
•Philadelphia Bar Association

Reported Cases:
Significant Representative Matters: Obtained a defense verdict in a lawsuit alleging that the defendant set off a firework that struck an 11 year old girl on her back, resulting in second degree burns and permanent scarring. Plaintiffs alleged through two independent eyewitnesses that the defendant was the perpetrator, though the defendant was acquitted in his criminal trial. The jury was not permitted to hear any evidence regarding the criminal trial, and the jury was not allowed to know that the defendant was acquitted. The jury found that the defendant was not negligent.; Defense verdict in lawsuit alleging negligent supervision by daycare facility of five-year-old child who sustained a severe fracture to his arm. Plaintiffs alleged that daycare employee was not properly spotting the child while he swung on the monkey bars at a local playground. Jury found defendant was not negligent because child had swung on monkey bars before without spotting and employee was standing just several feet away. Plaintiffs were awarded $40, 000 at initial arbitration.; Defense verdict in lawsuit alleging negligence by amusement park for failing to provide a safe egress for adult on a water slide. Plaintiffs alleged that amusement park did not provide adequate assistance to adult patron who was unable to exit an inner tube and who hit her head on the bottom of the pool. Jury found defendant was not negligent because of videotape showing many patrons using same attraction without incident and plaintiff was responsible for her own incident. Plaintiffs were awarded $15, 000 at initial arbitration.; Defense verdict in lawsuit alleging negligence by amusement park for failing to provide a safe environment for five-year-old child on an attractive nuisance staircase. Plaintiffs alleged that amusement park did not provide sufficient padding in and around a staircase featuring a prominent television character. Jury found defendant was not negligent because defendant is not required to protect its patrons from mere accidents. Plaintiffs were awarded $8, 500 at initial arbitration.; Defense verdict in lawsuit alleging assault and battery by employees of retail facility during shoplifting incident. Plaintiff alleged that retail facility was negligent for allowing two of its employees to physically assault suspected shoplifters while questioning them. Jury found defendant was not negligent because plaintiff's evidence was not credible to support that such an assault even occurred, even though Plaintiff sustained an orbital fracture.; Defense verdict in a slip and fall matter. Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on a tar spot located on the sidewalk of a property rented by our clients where she sustained injuries that required surgery. Plaintiff lived only four houses away, but claimed she had never seen the tar spot before, despite having lived there for fourteen years, and taking daily walks in the area. Our clients had only moved into the property three months before the fall occurred, and they had never noticed the tar spot before. Our expert engineer tested the tar spot and told the jury that it was not slippery and was not a defect. The case was complicated by the fact that there was a dusting of snow on the ground, which plaintiff claims obscured the tar spot. Plaintiff testified that the snow did not cause her fall, rather, it was the tar spot alone. The 8 member jury deliberated for 25 minutes before finding no negligence.; Defense verdict in a case slip and fall matter. Plaintiff claimed that she tripped and fell down the steps inside of the home she rented from our clients, when a piece of the top step broke off unexpectedly. Our clients testified that they had no notice of a dangerous condition, and plaintiff presented no evidence that anyone had knowledge of the deterioration of the steps. In addition, plaintiff's 6 prior criminal convictions for theft, forgery, criminal trespass, etc. were all admitted into evidence. Plaintiff attempted to argue that she turned her life around shortly before the incident happened, and our incident set her back, but the jury didn't buy it. In closing, plaintiff's attorney labeled one of our medical experts a paid assassin and asked the jurors to give the plaintiff something to celebrate . The jury was out for less than a half hour and found that our clients were not negligent, 12 - 0.
ISLN:
915614637

Peer Reviews

  • 4.6/5.0 7 reviews
  • Peer Reviewed
  • Legal Knowledge

    4.6/5.0
  • Analytical Capability

    4.6/5.0
  • Judgment

    4.6/5.0
  • Communication

    4.7/5.0
  • Legal Experience

    4.6/5.0
  • 5.0/5.0 by a Associate on 01/06/11 in Civil Practice

    • Legal Knowledge

      5.0/5.0
    • Analytical Capability

      5.0/5.0
    • Judgment

      5.0/5.0
    • Communication

      5.0/5.0
    • Legal Experience

      5.0/5.0

    Read less

  • 5.0/5.0 by a Managing Partner on 01/05/11 in Premises Liability

    I was opposing counsel in a case that proceeded to trial. Ms. Falcone did an excellent job. She is presently an attorney friend of mine in a matter and is doing an exce... Read more

    I was opposing counsel in a case that proceeded to trial. Ms. Falcone did an excellent job. She is presently an attorney friend of mine in a matter and is doing an excellent job.

    • Legal Knowledge

      5.0/5.0
    • Analytical Capability

      5.0/5.0
    • Judgment

      5.0/5.0
    • Communication

      5.0/5.0
    • Legal Experience

      5.0/5.0

    Read less

  • 5.0/5.0 by a Associate on 08/24/09 in Medical Malpractice

    • Legal Knowledge

      5.0/5.0
    • Analytical Capability

      5.0/5.0
    • Judgment

      5.0/5.0
    • Communication

      5.0/5.0
    • Legal Experience

      5.0/5.0

    Read less

  • 5.0/5.0 by a Of Counsel on 08/04/09 in Trial Practice

    Falcone is a generally excellent attorney who demonstrates great energy and enthusiasm for her work. Read more

    Falcone is a generally excellent attorney who demonstrates great energy and enthusiasm for her work.

    • Legal Knowledge

      5.0/5.0
    • Analytical Capability

      5.0/5.0
    • Judgment

      5.0/5.0
    • Communication

      5.0/5.0
    • Legal Experience

      5.0/5.0

    Read less

  • 4.2/5.0 by a Sole Practitioner on 12/22/10 in Litigation

    • Legal Knowledge

      4.0/5.0
    • Analytical Capability

      4.0/5.0
    • Judgment

      4.0/5.0
    • Communication

      5.0/5.0
    • Legal Experience

      4.0/5.0

    Read less

  • 4.0/5.0 by a Sole Practitioner on 12/22/10 in Litigation

    • Legal Knowledge

      4.0/5.0
    • Analytical Capability

      4.0/5.0
    • Judgment

      4.0/5.0
    • Communication

      4.0/5.0
    • Legal Experience

      4.0/5.0

    Read less

  • 4.0/5.0 by a Partner on 08/06/09 in Civil Litigation

    • Legal Knowledge

      4.0/5.0
    • Analytical Capability

      4.0/5.0
    • Judgment

      4.0/5.0
    • Communication

      4.0/5.0
    • Legal Experience

      4.0/5.0

    Read less

See All 7 Reviews


*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

Client Reviews

Disclaimer

Documents ({{amountArticles}})

Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com
Other documents: ,

Locations

Contact Laurianne Falcone

Please correct the fields highlighted in red.

By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.


You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.