Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC - Call 610-446-3457  
  Client Testimonials - Why Clients Appreciate Our Client-Focused Service  

Legal Writing Services

We tackle the work that keeps you up at night. When attorneys face complex issues, need creative insight, require an appellate brief or a trial memorandum, or they have an important case they need to handle, they contact the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel. Our office provides a variety of legal writing services for attorneys, including:

  • Appellate Briefs to the Superior and Commonwealth Courts, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and to the 3rd Circuit
  • Petitions for Allocatur
  • Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law or for a New Trial
  • Bench Memos
  • Motions in Limine
  • Motions for Summary Judgment
  • Preliminary Objections
  • Any other written work you may need.

We also provide strategic advice about your case and how best to set forth your arguments. Particularly in the appellate context, court procedures and preferences can be unexpected or confusing. Our experience in the appellate arena allows us to navigate those murky waters.

Dan Siegel is known for his writing skills and has handled countless matters in trial courts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He has also represented clients in every appellate court in Pennsylvania, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, as well as the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of New Jersey, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Known for a concise, but thorough and easy-to-understand style, the attorneys at Dan Siegel's office pride themselves on high quality work. You will thus receive file-ready written product with time to spare before your deadline.

So if a case is keeping you up at night, let us help you sleep.

Consider some of Dan's recent successes:

Ferguson v. Morton, 2013 PA Super 329, 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4574 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Author of the Brief for the Appellant)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order granting a new trial based upon the inflammatory closing argument by plaintiff’s counsel. In particular, the Court held that trial court erred in presuming that the jury’s verdict improperly included punitive damages. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that the summation so prejudiced the jury as to require a new trial.

Barnes v. Keller, 2012 PA Super 179, 2012 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3495 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Author of the Brief for the Appellant)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in this uninsured motorist claim. In particular, the Court held that a jetter attached to a cargo van could be a “motor vehicle” under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, and that genuine issues of fact existed that precluded the entry of summary judgment. The Court also disapproved of the fact that the trial judge failed to disclose that his spouse was employed as an attorney by the law firm representing the appellee.

Lewis v. CRC Industries, Inc., 2010 PA Super 179, 7 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Author of the Brief for the Appellant)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ordered a new trial in a products liability action involving the application of New Jersey substantive law, holding that the law prohibits a court from introducing to the jury the principle of assumption of risk as a defense to a plaintiff's strict product liability claim stemming from an used in a workplace setting. The Court further held when a jury charge as a whole is inadequate, or not clear, or has a tendency to mislead or confuse, rather than clarify a material issue, that error is a sufficient basis for the award of a new trial.

Commonwealth v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Harvey), 993 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2010)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that the use of actuarial data to calculate pension offsets for injured employees who also receive pension benefits from a defined benefit plan. By not foreclosing a claimant’s ability to challenge the calculations and the assumptions underlying them, injured workers may still employ actuaries to establish when improper and inaccurate calculations form the basis for a claimed offset.

Contact Dan Siegel today at (610) 446-3457 or e-mail Dan Siegel, and he will get back you as quickly as possible.



© 2017           Disclaimer          Web Design by Integrated Technology Services, LLC