Conroy Simberg Named to 2025 "Best Law Firms"
List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers®
Premier Civil Defense Firm
Conroy Simberg is a full-service civil defense law firm committed to providing outstanding representation and personalized legal services to each of our clients.
We have built a strong reputation for delivering skilled and experienced legal counsel to insurance companies, businesses, professionals and self-insured organizations. Our solution-oriented attorneys understand the financial pressures that our clients face and focus on creating strategies and solutions to resolve their cases in the quickest and most efficient manner. When a settlement cannot be achieved, our attorneys aggressively represent clients at all stages of the litigation process.
Over Four DecadesOf Services
History
Founded by Tom Conroy and Bruce Simberg in 1979, Conroy Simberg has grown to a firm with over 150 attorneys practicing in 11 offices located throughout the State of Florida and in Thomasville, Georgia. We have focused on expanding our firm by developing highly qualified partners and associates that broaden our areas of expertise.
Longevity
For more than 40 years, Conroy Simberg has established itself as a full-service civil defense firm, proudly serving the legal needs of insurance companies, self-insureds, and other related entities. Clients choose our firm because they value our longevity, loyalty, and outstanding legal results.
Diversity
Conroy Simberg is committed to increasing diversity and inclusion at all levels within the firm regardless of race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, economic status, and or other diverse backgrounds so that the firm will reflect the demographics of our clients.
Recent news & Events
Summary Judgment Granted In Premises Liability Case
Rodney Lundy and Jesse Dyer recently obtained summary judgment in a premises liability action in Hillsborough County, Florida, in which the plaintiff suffered injury when he ran into a sliding glass door at his in-law’s house. The trial court agreed that the homeowners did not owe a legal duty of care to the plaintiff because they did not by their conduct create a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury. The trial court also relied on public policy reasons and the adverse effect lawsuits may have on the family relationship.
Read More