Michael Pullano represents public and private entities, individuals and Fortune 500 companies in catastrophic injury matters and commercial disputes in state and federal courts.
Michael regularly counsels attorneys and design and IT professionals in professional malpractice matters. His civil litigation experience includes civil rights, defamation, employment law, municipal liability, personal injury and product liability.
From 1996 to 2000, Michael was an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia.
Michael has achieved "AV Preeminent" rating by Martindale Hubbell. He publishes regularly on topics pertaining to professional negligence and the evolution of social media and its effect on the law. He also regularly provides lectures to the firm’s attorneys on legal ethics.
Michael B. Pullano
Prevailed in the defense of a law firm defendant and individual attorneys in a Dragonetti action commenced in Philadelphia County. This action was appealed up to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and on April 7, 2015, the Court entered an Order affirming the ruling of the Lower Courts and in favor of the defendants. This action arose out of the “kids for cash” scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
Prevailed on 12(b)(6) motion in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and as a result plaintiff’s civil rights claims were dismissed against a local County and its District Attorney’s Office for alleged violations of plaintiff’s due process rights
Successfully defended defamation claim brought against attorney and law firm for comments made post deposition. Claims were dismissed by way of preliminary objections. Pullano argued on behalf of the appellees before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and prevailed on appeal
Defended a Pennsylvania supplier of heavy industrial equipment and earned a dismissal of plaintiff’s claims after jury selection in a catastrophic injury case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff’s demand was $3 million and the defendant offered nothing.
Successfully dismissed claims of alleged civil rights violations via 12(b)(6) motion in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Prevailed in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in the defense of a real estate agent alleged to have committed professional malpractice. Issues involved included appellant’s ability to produce expert reports under the applicable rules of civil procedure, collateral estoppel and statute of limitations. The matter was on appeal following a ruling for the defense during dispositive motions practice in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County.
Michael Pullano, Joseph Goldberg and Shannon Pierce successfully defended a plaintiff’s firm in a legal malpractice claim where a former client of the plaintiff’s firm alleged that a $1.2 million settlement with the United States was below the actual value of her claim. U.S. District Court Judge Berle Schiller rejected the former client’s contract and negligence. The Court held that the plaintiff’s claims were barred under Pennsylvania law.
The plaintiff retained her attorneys in 2008 when she was a Philadelphia resident to represent her and her daughter in a medical malpractice suit against the government. Several weeks before the medical malpractice case was scheduled to go to trial in 2012, the parties and counsel attended a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Thomas Reuter, which led to a $1.2 million settlement. The next day, the plaintiff wanted to withdraw from the agreement. The plaintiff discharged the attorneys and filed to reopen the case, but the government filed to enforce the settlement, which was ultimately granted by Magistrate Judge Jacob Hart. After the Third Circuit denied her appeal, the plaintiff sued her former counsel in Pennsylvania state court, which was removed to federal court in June, 2014. Judge Schiller rejected claims that she had been duped by her attorneys into accepting the settlement, concluding that Judge Hart had already determined during the proceedings over enforcement that she had not been deceived. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by Weber Gallagher on behalf of their clients.
A federal court judge in Philadelphia dismissed a Section 1983 lawsuit against a prosecutor and police detectives after ruling that the defendants were entitled to immunity for their actions.
In 2006, a local police department received a tip from an informant that the plaintiff was planning to rob a bank and use that same informant as a getaway driver. The police conducted surveillance of the plaintiff and recorded the informant having conversations with the plaintiff regarding the robbery. The robbery was planned on at least three occasions and each time the plaintiff would cancel the plans. Ultimately, an affidavit of probable cause was prepared and approved by a Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff was arrested and charged with criminal solicitation to commit robbery. He was incarcerated for more than three months because he could not make bail. The criminal case proceeded to trial; at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case the defense moved for an acquittal and the motion was granted by the criminal trial judge.
The plaintiff thereafter filed a 1983 action against certain police officers and the handling prosecutor, claiming that he had been entrapped and, as a result of being imprisoned, he had suffered mental and physical injuries.
The plaintiff alleged that the informant was giving him drugs and feeding his addiction and that the only reason why he had any conversations with the informant was because the informant wanted to commit the robbery and had promised him drugs if he went along. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that there were more than 40 pieces of information that should have been included in the affidavit of probable cause and were intentionally omitted and kept from the Magistrate. He alleged that had the Magistrate been aware of that information, there would not have been a determination of probable cause.
The defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the law enforcement officials were entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity because probable cause had existed to effectuate the plaintiff’s arrest. Counsel also argued that the items the plaintiff wanted included in the affidavit would not affect the probable cause that existed.
In a December 22, 2009 decision, Judge Eduardo Robreno granted all of the defendants' motions. The plaintiff’s demand prior to motion practice was $800,000.
The prosecutor and one of the detectives were represented by Weber Gallagher partners Joseph Goldberg and Michael B. Pullano.
Professional & Community Involvement
Senior Hearing Committee, Disciplinary Board of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2005-2011
215.972.7900 ext 7896