New Jersey Appellate Division

Warning: the underlying facts and procedural history are cringeworthy. This is the saga of a medical malpractice case which is dismissed, leading to a legal malpractice case, which is wrongfully dismissed, leading to an Appellate Division case which exposes all the flawed decision-making.

Plaintiff died, allegedly of bedsore complications in a Jersey City nursing home in 2012. His daughter, as the representative of her father’s estate, retained defendant attorney to handle the medical malpractice case against the nursing home.

Defendant had never handled a medical malpractice case, but in preparation for this matter he read a book and researched the Affidavit of Merit (AOM) statute. Believing no AOM was necessary, defendant filed the complaint in 2013. He “initiated the action without conducting an investigation, a medical records review, or consulting with any experts before or after the complaint was filed.” (Opinion at 4). In April of 2014 the complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failing to file an AOM. Defendant then advised plaintiff she may have a cause of action against him for legal malpractice.
Continue Reading

Identifying who your client is at the outset is one of the most important aspects of the attorney-client relationship.  It governs who you can seek payment from and who can sue you for malpractice.  This is particularly important when your client is a limited liability company, general or limited partnership, or a closely held corporation. 

State v. Martinez, just approved for publication,  offers some interesting lessons for criminal defense attorneys who seek to interview cooperating witnesses. It offers even more interesting lessons for the prosecutors who seek to surreptitiously record those interviews.

Defense counsel are entitled to ask for an interview with any state’s witness. This witness advised prosecutors that

The Appellate Division recently ruled that a retainer agreement which contained a mandatory arbitration clause, for both fee disputes and legal malpractice claims, is unenforceable against the firm’s former client,  under the circumstances. Delaney v. Trent S. Dickey and Sills Cummis & Gross, PC, Docket No. A-1726-17T4, decided August 23, 2019.

Appellant Delaney sought

A recent Appellate Division case exposes the pitfalls of “judge-shopping” by a former law clerk with the cooperation of the judge. In Goldfarb v. Solimine, Docket No.  A-3740-16T2, (June 26, 2019) the panel ruled that a plaintiff alleging promissory estoppel in an employment context was entitled to a new trial on damages after an unusual

A recent Appellate Division decision illustrates the importance of a solid engagement letter that sets forth both the scope of the engagement as well as any limitations on the scope, i.e., what the lawyer is not being retained to do. In Murphy v. Shaw, Docket No. L-0869-13 (decided June 21, 2019), the lawyer was

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently confirmed how important it is to comply with procedural court rules, especially when the Court has given guidance as to how to comply with them.  In Cuomo v. TSI Ridgewood, Docket No A-4898-17T4, Defendant’s attorneys failed to comply with the requirements of electronic filing, as well as the

The Appellate Division recently permitted a law firm to proceed with litigation against a former expert who had been poised to provide expert testimony on behalf of the law firm’s clients in a medical malpractice proceeding.  Prior to trial, the expert declined to participate, and the court denied the clients’ request for leave to seek

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently said no.  The Client in that case hired Attorney 1 to pursue an employment claim under a contract of employment that contained an arbitration clause as well as a Delaware choice of law clause. Approximately three years later, Client fires Attorney 1 and hires Attorney 2.  Attorney 2 files

A recent Appellate Division decision serves as a reminder to attorneys to ensure that they have received proper authorization from their clients to settle a matter.  In Jesus Gonzalez v. Electronic Integration Services, LLC t/a Panurgy OEM, Docket No. A-0251-18T3 (App. Div. May 30, 2019), the court considered an appeal of a trial court’s