John J. Morgan

Attorney in Stamford, CT
John J. Morgan confesses to representing the interests of Insurance carriers in his early career. He then adapted his training, knowledge, experience and command of insurance skills for the benefit of injured people. Over the years since, he has recovered millions of dollars for his injured clients. He leads the firm's Personal Injury and Workers' Compensation practice.

Representing Petroleum Dealers and Small Business:

John J. Morgan is lead litigation counsel for the Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America, Inc. (GASDA) and its members. He is also GASDA’s Chief Legislative Consultant. He has an exceptional track record of success representing Gasoline Dealers in State & Federal Court. He is leading the Firm into its Second Generation representing Gasoline Dealers and their Families.

Professional Associations and Memberships:

• Fairfield County Bar Association

• American Bar Association, Member, Torts and Insurance Practice Section, Litigation Section, Franchise Forum

• Million Dollar Advocates Forum, Life Member

• Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum, Life Member

• Featured Lawyer:

Representative Cases:

• 189 Connecticut Ave., LLC v. Melville Corp., 2009 WL 1537883, (D.Conn.)

• 189 Connecticut Ave., LLC v. Melville Corp, D.Conn., 3:09cv00260 (Real Property - Rent/Eviction)

• Bhinder v. Sun Co., Inc., 819 A.2d 822, (Conn. 2003)

• Bhinder v. Sun Co., Inc., 717 A.2d 202, (Conn. 1998)

• Bruce, ET AL v. Motiva Enterprises, D.Conn., 3:00cv01831 (Federal Statutes - PMPA)

• C.C. Mase Inc v. CPD Properties Inc ET AL, D.Conn., 3:08cv01272 (Contracts - Gasoline Franchise)

• C.C. Mase Inc ET AL v. Motiva Enterprises LLC ET AL, D.Conn., 3:03cv02265 (Federal Statutes - PMPA)

• Ceraso v. Motiva Ent, LLC, ET AL, C.A.2, Feb. 4, 2002 02-7126 (Federal Statutes - PMPA)

• Ceraso v. Motiva Ent, LLC, ET AL, D.Conn., 3:01CV00193 (Federal Statutes - PMPA)

• Ceraso v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC, 326 F.3d 303, (2nd Cir.(Conn 2003)

• Colony Farms of Colchester Inc v. New England Petroleum LP ET AL, D.Conn., 3:07cv00585 (PMPA Franchise Action)

• Commissioner v. Kapadwala

• Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC ET AL v. Richmond Donut, Inc. ET AL, E.D.N.Y., 1:09cv00898 (Contracts - Franchise)

• Febus v. Guardian First Funding Group, LLC, S.D.N.Y., 1:10cv02590 (Class action, Labor & Employment)

• Harper v. Arnold Transportation Svc Inc ET AL, 3:04cv00479 (Torts/Negligence - Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle)

• Hartford Gas Inc ET AL v. Motiva Ent, LLC ET AL, D.Conn., 3:09cv00070 (Torts/Environmental Law)

• Hoyt Livery Inc ET AL v. Cherival ET AL, D.Conn., 3:08cv00500 (Intellectual Property - Trademark/Trade Name)

• Horicka ET AL v. Attorney General ET AL, D.Conn., 3:06cv01839 (Prisoner Rights - Mandamus)

• Kennynick LLC ET AL v. Standard Petroleum Co, D.Conn., 3:09cv00257 (Class Action Tax Fraud)

Kim v. International Nail & Spa Corp. II ET AL, D.Conn., 3:09cv00377 (Contracts)

• Newbank v. International Nail & Spa Corp. II ET AL, E.D.N.Y1:09cv02106 (Contracts - Negotiable Instrument)

• Pruitt v. New England Petroleum Ltd. Partnership, 2006 WL 3332773, (D.Conn. 2006)

• Roll-A-Cover LLC v. Cohen ET AL, D.Conn., 3:09cv01378 (Business dispute - contracts)

• Rudy's Limousine Service, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 826 A.2d 1161, (Conn.App., 2003)

• Salaman v. BullockK ET AL, D.Conn., 3:05cv00876 (Prisoner Rights - Civil Rights)

• Spadacinni v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC

• Tasneen Gas, LL v. CPD Properties LLC ET AL, D.Conn., 3:09cv00308 (PMPA Action)

• Tishio, John v. Peter J. Boccarrossa, Civil, Contracts, Conn.Super., FST-CV-09-5013034-S (Contracts)

• Vernal, ET AL v. Amoco Oil, ET AL, C.A.2, 99-9383 (Federal Statutes - PMPA)

• Vernal, ET AL v. Amoco Oil Company, ET AL, D.Conn., 3:98cv02280 (Federal Statutes - PMPA)

• Western World Ins. Co. v. Architectural Builders of Westport, LLC, 247 F.R.D. 293, (D.Conn. 2008)

• Western World Ins. Co. v. Architectural Builders of Westport, LLC, 520 F.Supp.2d 408, (D.Conn. 2007)

• Western World Ins Co v. Architectural Builders of Westport LLC ET AL, D.Conn., 3:06cv01605 (Contracts - Insurance)

Credit Cards Accepted

Areas of Law

  • Personal Injury
  • Worker's Compensation
  • Litigation in State and Federal Court
  • PMPA Litigation
  • Termination and Non-Renewal
  • Franchise Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Car Accident
  • Slip and Fall
  • Products Liability
  • General Business Law
  • Environmental Law


Overall Client Rating

in Litigation, Business Law and Contracts
4.9 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
Quality of Service
Value for Money

  • Data based on 2 reviews
  • Recommended by 2 Clients
  • Last reviewed on 03/21/11
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.
Are you a former client?  Submit a review

Legal Community Activity

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1992, Connecticut
1993, New York
U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
U.S. District Court, Southern, Northern and Eastern Districts of New York
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Supreme Court of the United States
US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Credit Cards Accepted
Law School Attended

Villanova University School of Law
Class of 1992

University Attended

State University of New York at Albany
Class of 1989
Criminal Law and Sociology, cum laude

Associations & Memberships

Connecticut (Member, Sections on: Federal Practice; Litigation Section; Workers Compensation) and American (Member, Sections on: Torts and Insurance Practice; Forum on Franchising) Bar Associati... More

Contact Information


(203) 356-1595 Call Now


(203) 357-8397


Send email to John J. Morgan

Social Networking

Office Information
John J. Morgan
 22 Fifth Street,
Stamford, CT 06905


Barr & Morgan (Stamford, Connecticut)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.