Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

Results Speak for Themselves We are litigators who think practically not abstractly. We are trial lawyers who understand coverage and coverage lawyers who try cases. We are advisors who help you manage your risk. PRACTICE AREAS Our Practice Areas OUR VISION What sets Wade Clark Mulcahy apart Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP attorneys represent clients who rely upon our success as advocates and our practical, results oriented advice and recognized expertise as trial and appellate lawyers across a broad spectrum of insurance, commercial and coverage matters. While we practice from our offices in New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Long Island, our clients regularly call upon us to manage risk in jurisdictions across the country. Our growth has been driven by client referrals. ATTORNEYS Latest News

Latest News Button July 25, 2024 Read More Second Department Strictly Interprets CPLR 3420(d)(2) Timeliness Standard Second Department Strictly Interprets CPLR 3420(d)(2) Timeliness Standard Button July 25, 2024 Read More Better to Have an :Assured Clear Distance" than 2020 Hindsight in Pennsylvania Better to Have an :Assured Clear Distance" than 2020 Hindsight in Pennsylvania Button July 25, 2024 Read More Appellate Division Highlights Need for Thorough Evidence for Trivial Defect Defense Appellate Division Highlights Need for Thorough Evidence for Trivial Defect Defense Button July 25, 2024 Read More WCM Wins Again! Court Grants Time Bar Motion to Dismiss in NY WCM Wins Again! Court Grants Time Bar Motion to Dismiss in NY Button July 19, 2024 Read More District Court of New Jersey Holds Additional Insured Coverage is Triggered by Allegations of Vicarious and Direct Liability District Court of New Jersey Holds Additional Insured Coverage is Triggered by Allegations of Vicarious and Direct Liability Button July 19, 2024 Read More Take Notice! Take Notice! Button July 19, 2024 Read More Harassment and Bias: Superior Court of New Jersey Defends Against Burdensome Subpoenas Harassment and Bias: Superior Court of New Jersey Defends Against Burdensome Subpoenas Button July 16, 2024 Read More WCM Wins Again! Important Labor Law Victory for Homeowners WCM Wins Again! Important Labor Law Victory for Homeowners Button July 12, 2024 Read More Proposed OSHA Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule Could Create A New Species of Labor Litigation Proposed OSHA Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule Could Create A New Species of Labor Litigation Button July 12, 2024 Read More A Culinary Coup, a Foie Gras Fête: NYC’s Ban of Foie Gras Foiled Again A Culinary Coup, a Foie Gras Fête: NYC’s Ban of Foie Gras Foiled Again Button July 11, 2024 Read More WCM Wins SJ on Horseback Riding Case WCM Wins SJ on Horseback Riding Case Button July 11, 2024 Read More Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Plaintiff in Trip and Fall on Sidewalk Upon Determine that There was a Substantial Defect of the Sidewalk Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Plaintiff in Trip and Fall on Sidewalk Upon Determine that There was a Substantial Defect of the Sidewalk Button July 11, 2024 Read More Latency Protects You From Negligence Until it is No Longer Latent Latency Protects You From Negligence Until it is No Longer Latent Button July 3, 2024 Read More How Reasonable Does a Reasonable Inspection Have to Be? How Reasonable Does a Reasonable Inspection Have to Be? Button July 3, 2024 Read More Lack of Knowledge Could Mean No Case Lack of Knowledge Could Mean No Case Button July 3, 2024 Read More New York Courts Generally Won’t Relinquish Jurisdiction Over Declaratory Judgment Action to Another State New York Courts Generally Won’t Relinquish Jurisdiction Over Declaratory Judgment Action to Another State Button June 21, 2024 Read More Sovereign Immunity and Charter Schools Sovereign Immunity and Charter Schools Button June 21, 2024 Read More One Two Many Dwellings: Southern District of New York Holds Building Is Not Covered As “Two-Family Dwelling” Under Homeowners’ Policy One Two Many Dwellings: Southern District of New York Holds Building Is Not Covered As “Two-Family Dwelling” Under Homeowners’ Policy Button June 21, 2024 Read More And the Case Goes On… And the Case Goes On… Button June 14, 2024 Read More Reasonable Excuse and Meritorious Defense Leads to Reversal of Unopposed Summary Judgment Award Reasonable Excuse and Meritorious Defense Leads to Reversal of Unopposed Summary Judgment Award Button June 14, 2024 Read More Bare Legal Conclusions in a Complaint Not Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss Bare Legal Conclusions in a Complaint Not Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss Button June 14, 2024 Read More Right to Arbitrate Waived by Prior Litigation Conduct Right to Arbitrate Waived by Prior Litigation Conduct Button June 14, 2024 Read More Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $8,000,000 Fee Award Not Consistent with the Language of the Parties’ Agreement Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $8,000,000 Fee Award Not Consistent with the Language of the Parties’ Agreement Button June 7, 2024 Read More Contradicting Much? Contradicting Much? Button June 7, 2024 Read More Not Liable for Negligence, But Still Possibly Liable for Negligence? Not Liable for Negligence, But Still Possibly Liable for Negligence? Load More

News Second Department Strictly Interprets CPLR 3420(d)(2) Timeliness Standard July 25, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ In Charles Bardylyn Enterprises, Inc. v. Rockingham Insurance Company , the New York Appellate Division, Second Department dealt with an appeal stemming from a declaratory judgment action brought by Charles Bardylyn Enterprises (“CBE”) seeking “a judgment declaring that Rockingham is obligated to defend and indemnify CBE in the underlying action.” Charles Bardylyn Enters, Inc. v. Rockingham Ins. Co. , No. 520763/20 2024, 2024 WL 3058101, at *2 (N.Y. App. Div. June 20, 2024). The underlying action involved claims that Lawrence Sessoms suffered bodily injury when he slipped and fell at CBE’s property on December 14, 2019. Id. At the time the incident occurred, CBE had a commercial general liability policy (“Policy”) issued by Rockingham Insurance Company (“Rockingham”). Id. The Policy provided coverage for “sums that CBE became legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ to which the policy applied,” but the Policy also contained several exclusions and endorsements. First, the Policy included a habitability exclusion, meaning “the policy did not apply to bodily injury arising out of, inter alia, the alleged or actual ‘[f]ailure to maintain any premises in, or restore any premises to, a safe, sanitary, healthy, habitable and tenantable condition.” Id. Second, the Policy included a tenant special conditions endorsement, providing that “in order for coverage to apply to claims for bodily injury arising out of a tenant’s occupancy at the premises, CBE was required to maintain several documents related to the tenancy.” Id. On January 24, 2020, Rockingham was notified of the underlying action via a notice of claim. Id. On February 28, 2020, Rockingham’s third-party claims administrator, Certus Claims Administration (“Certus”), notified CBE via letter that there was insufficient information to accept or deny the claim. Id. On March 23, 2020, Certus sent a letter to CBE notifying CBE that “Rockingham disclaimed coverage under the policy, inter alia, on the basis of the habitability exclusion.” Id. CBE then brought this declaratory judgment action against Rockingham in October 2020 seeking a judgment that “Rockingham is obligated to defend and indemnify CBE in the underlying action.” Id. Following several motions and an appeal, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department considered the case and decided to “remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of judgment, inter alia, declaring that Rockingham is obligated to defend and indemnify CBE in the underlying action.” Id. at *4. Under Section 3420(d)(2), an insurer must provide its insured with “timely written notice ‘as soon as is reasonably possible’ of its disclaimer or denial of coverage.” Id. at *3. Under New York law, the timeliness of disclaimer “is measured from the point in time when the insurer first learns of the grounds for disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage.” Id. The Court determined that Rockingham’s delay in disclaiming coverage at least 34 days after receiving the complaint was “unreasonable as a matter of law” because “the facts supporting disclaimer were apparent from the face of the complaint.” Failure to timely disclaim coverage on the basis of an exclusion causes an insurer to be “estopped from disclaiming liability or denying coverage.” Id. Thus, the Court held that Rockingham’s failure to timely disclaim coverage under the habitability exclusion and tenant special conditions endorsement rendered Rockingham’s disclaimer under the exclusion and endorsement ineffective. Id. This case demonstrates the importance of timely disclaimer in cases of bodily injury, especially when disclaimer is based on an exclusion or endorsement. New York Courts are known for having deadlines written "in pencil," meaning there is usually some wiggle room. Not with CPLR Section 3420(d)(2). Thanks to Caroline Nelson for this post. Previous Next Contact

News Better to Have an :Assured Clear Distance" than 2020 Hindsight in Pennsylvania July 25, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ You’re driving along when your car betrays you; engine trouble comes for us all. You pull to the side of the road and start working on how to resolve your car issues. BAM! Another vehicle slams into yours. Who’s at fault? While the circumstances of any individual accident will dictate the allegations and defenses, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to familiarize yourself with Pennsylvania’s “assured clear distance rule.”Pennsylvania law requires that vehicles be driven at a safe speed. The law states that: No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, nor at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring his vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead . Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curv e , when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. 75 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3361 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has stated that the “assured clear distance rule, which requires a motorist to be capable of stopping within the distance that he can clearly see, has long been recognized by this Court.” Springer v. Luptowski , 635 A.2d 134, 136 (Pa. 1993) (citing Haines v. Dulaney, 227 A.2d 625 (Pa. 1967); Metro v. Long Transportation Co., 127 A.2d 716, 719–20 (Pa. 1956); Weibel v. Ferguson, 19 A.2d 357, 360 (Pa. 1941); Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Co., 5 A.2d 182, 183–84 (Pa. 1939); Gaber v. Weinberg, 188 A. 187 (Pa. 1936)). In Springer , a motorist traveling on a two-lane road rounded a curve and “encountered two vehicles stopped side by side on the roadway” blocking both lanes. Id . at 135. At trial, the “court instructed the jury … that [plaintiff’s decedent] was negligent as a matter of law for violating the assured clear distance ahead rule.” Id . On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Court ruled that it “has repeatedly held that, where a violation of the assured clear distance rule has been clearly established by the evidence, the violation can be deemed negligence as a matter of law.” Id . at 136. The Court also opined that "the Vehicle and Traffic Code clearly provides, in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361, supra, that motorists must drive at speeds slow enough to allow their vehicles to be brought to a safe stop within the assured clear distance ahead. The same provision expressly sets forth a duty to drive at a safe and appropriate speed ‘when going around [a] curve’ …. Accordingly, we have consistently upheld the duty of motorists traversing curves and hill crests to travel at speeds slow enough to avoid colliding with unexpected obstructions on the roadway. E.g., Haines v. Dulaney, 424 Pa. at 611–12, 227 A.2d at 626–27 (curves); Hogg v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co., 373 Pa. 632, 638–39, 96 A.2d 879, 882–83 (1953) (hill crests). Such obstructions include, of course, vehicles parked on the roadway . Haines v. Dulaney, supra. Id . (emphasis added). Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to instruct the jury that the plaintiff had been negligent as a matter of law. [1] " What’s the takeaway? Let’s go back to the scenario at the beginning, you’ve pulled over because of car trouble and then an accident occurred. Thereafter, litigation ensues and you’re being sued for negligence. (and possibly other claims), but at the very least your familiarity with the assured clear distance rule will allow you to put up a defense, and not only one that calls the possibility of the other party’s own negligence into question, but one which, in Pennsylvania, establishes negligence as a matter of law. [1] See also Lockhart v. List , 665 A.2d 1176, 1179 (Pa. 1995); Cannon v. Tabor , 642 A.2d 1108, 1111 (Pa. Super. 1994). Previous Next Ryan Hunsicker Ryan Hunsicker Associate +1 267 239 5526 rhunsicker@wcmlaw.com Contact

News Appellate Division Highlights Need for Thorough Evidence for Trivial Defect Defense July 25, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ Recently, in Clarke v. 90 South Park Owners, Inc. , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 03162, the Appellate Division, Second Department decided on an appeal by plaintiff after the premises owner defendant was granted summary judgment. Plaintiff initiated the action after she was injured after a trip and fall allegedly caused by an uneven sidewalk abutting the defendant’s owned premises. The defendant initially prevailed on its summary judgment motion by arguing that the sidewalk defect plaintiff alleged caused her fall was trivial, and thus was unactionable. On appeal, the Second Department affirmed the award of summary judgment, holding that the defendant sufficiently demonstrated with admissible evidence that the sidewalk defect alleged by plaintiff was trivial. However, in so doing, the court explained that this is a high burden for defendants to meet. Specifically, “[i]n determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the ‘width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury,” (quoting Haber v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. , 217 A.D.3d 659, 660 (2d Dep’t. 2023)). In this case, two pieces of evidence proffered by defendant were critical in establishing the defect was trivial. First, photos of the sidewalk contained measurements of the alleged defect, and which showed that the height differential in question was insignificant and that the surrounding area lacked characteristics that would increase the risk posed by the alleged defect. Second, plaintiff’s deposition confirmed that the surrounding circumstances did not add to the alleged defect’s risk; she testified that she had walked on the same sidewalk many times previously, had never tripped on it before, and her view at the time of the accident was not obstructed nor did poor lighting contribute to her fall. This case demonstrates the importance of identifying the applicability of a trivial defect defense early in the litigation process. Dismissal on a trivial defect defense is a very high standard in New York, but a thorough inspection, measurements and tailored deposition questioning can help to drive the defense home. Previous Next Andrew D. Henriquez Andrew D. Henriquez Associate +1 332 345 4094 ahenriquez@wcmlaw.com Contact

News WCM Wins Again! Court Grants Time Bar Motion to Dismiss in NY July 25, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ Hon. Judge Suzanne J. Adams, recently granted WCM's motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in the case of New Liberty Pawn Shop, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. Plaintiff New Liberty Pawn Shop Inc. (“New Liberty”) sought coverage under its policy of insurance issued by Defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (“Underwriters”) after a reported theft. After the theft occurred, Underwriters conducted a preliminary investigation into New Liberty’s claim. Underwriters soon discovered that New Liberty was acting as the owner and controlling force behind Romanov Gold Buyers, another jewelry entity which was being criminally investigated. New Liberty did not disclose that it was acting as the controlling force behind Romanov on its application for insurance and essentially lied when filling out question 17(c) which required “the names and addresses of other locations of the proposer and of other concerns engaged in the jewelry trade under the same ownership or management as the proposer and not included in this proposal.” Underwriters determined that this misstatement was a breach of the policy and therefore disclaimed coverage on April 7, 2021. On October 27, 2023, thirty months after the disclaimer was issued, New Liberty filed suit against Underwriters asserting a cause of action for breach of contract. Notably, New Liberty’s policy contained Condition “n”, which provided that: “No suit, action or proceeding for the recovery of any claim under this Contract shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless the same be commenced within twelve (12) months next after discovery of the insured of the occurrence which gives rise to the claim…” We argued that New Liberty’s delay in filing violated the unambiguous terms of the policy, and therefore New Liberty’s complaint should be dismissed. Judge Adams agreed, holding that New Liberty’s complaint and amended complaint filed on November 6, 2023 were time barred and dismissed with prejudice. Time bar provisions are generally disfavored and scrutinized carefully, but in this case, Judge Adams fully WCM's position, and found excuse for New Liberty having waited more than two years to test the merits of the disclaimer. An important win for WCM and for our clients in London. Nice work by Dennis Wade, Mike Bono, Martha Osisek and Dominika Tomasetti in a true team effort. Previous Next Martha Osisek Martha Osisek Associate +1 267 857 3510 mosisek@wcmlaw.com Dennis M. Wade Dennis M. Wade Partner +1 212 267 1900 Domenica B. Tomasetti Domenica B. Tomasetti Associate +1 267 279 9930 Michael A. Bono Michael A. Bono Executive Partner +1 212 267 1900 mbono@wcmlaw.com Contact

Filter by: Filter by: England Law Clerk Florida Long Island New Jersey Paralegal New York Pennsylvania Filter Helene E. Dalmanieras Paralegal Mark Turner Market Representative Michelle B. Gonsoulin Chief Operating Officer Rachel A. Wade Operations Manager Eileen McGlyn Paralegal Jenny Rajkowski Paralegal Professional Staff

Corey Stein Associate Long Island CStein@wcmlaw.com Professional Experience During law school, had various internships which consisted of Real Estate Law, Criminal law and Personal Injury. Prior to joining WCM, Corey Stein was an Associate Attorney practicing Real Estate and Health Law. In 2022, Corey worked as a Commercial Real Estate Attorney. Here, he managed several files including purchases and refinances. Currently, at WCM, Corey Stein litigates a range of general liability claims, including personal injury, construction and labor law claims, vehicular accidents and property damage claims. His work includes all aspects of these cases from inception to resolution, including fact analysis and investigation, drafting pleadings and motions, depositions, legal research, complex discovery, arbitrations, mediations, and preparing for trial. Publications I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Education Juris Doctor, Maurice A. Dean School of Law at Hofstra University, May 2021 Bachelor of Science, University of Massachusetts, May 2018 Bar Admissions New York Download

Attorneys Filter by: Filter by: England Florida Associate Long Island New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Counsel Of Counsel Partner Filter Patrick J. Argento Counsel Michael A. Bono Executive Partner Maria E. Dalmanieras Partner Chip M-P George Of Counsel Steven F. Goldstein Of Counsel Alexander Hubschmidt Associate Sydney Kockler Associate Jack McGuire Associate Vito A. Pinto Partner Christopher Roppolo Associate Gary N. Smith Partner Dennis M. Wade Partner Gina M. Arnedos Partner Nicole Y. Brown Managing Partner Thomas J. Decker Of Counsel Brian Gibbons Partner Ross G. Gudis Associate Ryan Hunsicker Associate Carol N. Kotsinis Partner Taylor Mitarotonda Associate Sarah Polacek Associate Jean S. Scanlan Associate Corey Stein Associate Emily C. Walpole Associate E. Alexis Bevis Partner Georgia Coats Partner Justine Elias Senior Associate Andrew Gibbs Partner Andrew D. Henriquez Associate Steve J. Kim Partner Jason Laicha Associate Brian T. Noel Counsel Alexander Rabhan Associate Carl J. Schaerf Partner Anand P. Tayal Associate Jessica Whelan Associate Abed Z. Bhuyan Counsel Robert J. Cosgrove Partner Karl Eschelbach IV, Esq. Counsel Ishra Glasswala Associate Christina Herrera Associate Julia Klein Associate Bruce A. Magaw Of Counsel Martha Osisek Associate Peter R. Restani Partner James W. Scott Jr. Partner Domenica B. Tomasetti Associate

Dominika A. Rybaltowski Associate Attorney New Jersey, New York 1 332 345 4085 drybaltowski@wcmlaw.com Professional Experience Dominika works in a wide variety of litigation claims, including general liability actions, personal injury claims, property damage cases, contract disputes, and construction defect claims. Her work includes all aspects of these cases, including fact analysis and investigation, drafting pleadings and motions, attending depositions, performing legal research, attending hearings, arbitrations, and mediations, and preparing for trial. Dominika is a graduate of the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University where she worked as a student attorney for the Food and Beverage Law Clinic providing pro bono transactional legal services to small farm businesses, artisan food manufacturers, craft beverage entrepreneurs, and related nonprofit organizations. Publications I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Education J.D. Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University B.S. Economics and Finance, Seton Hall University Stillman School of Business Bar Admissions New Jersey Download

Filter by: England Florida Associate Long Island New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Of Counsel Law Clerk Operations Counsel Partner Paralegal Filter Patrick J. Argento Patrick J. Argento Counsel Michael A. Bono Michael A. Bono Executive Partner Maria E. Dalmanieras Maria E. Dalmanieras Partner Karl Eschelbach IV, Esq. Karl Eschelbach IV, Esq. Counsel Ishra Glasswala Ishra Glasswala Associate Andrew D. Henriquez Andrew D. Henriquez Associate Steve J. Kim Steve J. Kim Partner Jason Laicha Jason Laicha Associate Taylor Mitarotonda Taylor Mitarotonda Associate Sarah Polacek Sarah Polacek Associate Christopher Roppolo Christopher Roppolo Associate James W. Scott Jr. James W. Scott Jr. Partner Domenica B. Tomasetti Domenica B. Tomasetti Associate Emily C. Walpole Emily C. Walpole Associate Gina M. Arnedos Gina M. Arnedos Partner Nicole Y. Brown Nicole Y. Brown Managing Partner Helene E. Dalmanieras Helene E. Dalmanieras Paralegal Chip M-P George Chip M-P George Of Counsel Steven F. Goldstein Steven F. Goldstein Of Counsel Christina Herrera Christina Herrera Associate Julia Klein Julia Klein Associate Bruce A. Magaw Bruce A. Magaw Of Counsel Brian T. Noel Brian T. Noel Counsel Alexander Rabhan Alexander Rabhan Associate Dominika A. Rybaltowski Dominika A. Rybaltowski Associate Attorney Gary N. Smith Gary N. Smith Partner Mark Turner Mark Turner Market Representative Jessica Whelan Jessica Whelan Associate E. Alexis Bevis E. Alexis Bevis Partner Georgia Coats Georgia Coats Partner Thomas J. Decker Thomas J. Decker Of Counsel Brian Gibbons Brian Gibbons Partner Michelle B. Gonsoulin Michelle B. Gonsoulin Chief Operating Officer Alexander Hubschmidt Alexander Hubschmidt Associate Sydney Kockler Sydney Kockler Associate Eileen McGlyn Eileen McGlyn Paralegal Martha Osisek Martha Osisek Associate Jenny Rajkowski Jenny Rajkowski Paralegal Jean S. Scanlan Jean S. Scanlan Associate Corey Stein Corey Stein Associate Rachel A. Wade Rachel A. Wade Operations Manager Abed Z. Bhuyan Abed Z. Bhuyan Counsel Robert J. Cosgrove Robert J. Cosgrove Partner Justine Elias Justine Elias Senior Associate Andrew Gibbs Andrew Gibbs Partner Ross G. Gudis Ross G. Gudis Associate Ryan Hunsicker Ryan Hunsicker Associate Carol N. Kotsinis Carol N. Kotsinis Partner Jack McGuire Jack McGuire Associate Vito A. Pinto Vito A. Pinto Partner Peter R. Restani Peter R. Restani Partner Carl J. Schaerf Carl J. Schaerf Partner Anand P. Tayal Anand P. Tayal Associate Dennis M. Wade Dennis M. Wade Partner Team Members

Rachel A. Wade Operations Manager New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania +1 212 267 1900 Professional Experience Rachel Wade manages and directs WCM’s day-to-day operations, overseeing the firm’s business, operational and administrative functions to support and ensure the firm’s continued tradition of excellent work and results for its clients. Rachel serves as a key tactical partner with WCM’s Management Committee in developing and executing the firm’s strategic initiatives to advance its short- and long-term business goals. She works with firm management across all offices, as well as with partners and staff, developing and implementing firmwide best practices, policies and procedures to ensure that the firm has the proper operational controls, administrative support, reporting processes, and people and systems in place at all levels of the firm. Rachel has spent her entire career at WCM, joining the firm as a receptionist while studying at St. John’s University and then working as a legal assistant and paralegal, before taking on the administrative and operational responsibilities that ultimately led to the transition to her role as Operations Manager. Honors and Distinctions St. John’s University Bachelor of Science, cum laude Publications I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Education B.S., St. John's University Download