Court Rules

No Ethics Violation in Attorney Purchasing Another Attorney's Name as a Keyword for Internet Searches, the Supreme Court Says, With a Caveat

In re Opinion No. 735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). [Disclosure: I represented an amicus curiae in this appeal]. As Justice Noriega said in his opinion for a 5-1 majority (Justice Pierre-Louis did not participate), this appeal "presents the narrow question of whether it is permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) for an attorney or law firm to purchase a competing attorney's or law firm's name as a keyword." The Court found it permissible, with a caveat. Justice Fasciale dissented....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Where a Party Files a Suit Alleged to Violate the UPEPA But Quickly Dismisses It, Can Defendants Then Get Counsel Fees Under the Statute?

On May 15, judges on Part C of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Satz v. Keshet Starr. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a defamation suit against defendants. Defendants filed an o order to show cause to dismiss the case and for attorneys' fees under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 et seq. ("UPEPA"). The UPEPA, enacted in 2023, sought to make it more difficult to use the legal system as a weapon to bully individuals into silence by filing what have been known as SLAPP ("strategic lawsuits against public participation") suits....

The Supreme Court Confirms That Municipalities Can be Subjected to Sanctions for Frivolous Litigation

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This appeal presented the question of whether municipalities can be liable to pay sanctions for frivolous litigation, under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 ("the FLS"). In a 5-0 opinion written by Justice Fasciale (Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Hoffman did not participate), the Court affirmed, as modified, the decision of the Appellate Division that upheld the Law Division's imposition of FLS sanctions against the Borough....

The "Castle Doctrine"

State v. Bragg, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). A jury found defendant guilty of twelve charged counts, including attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, endangering, and two lesser-included offenses of harassment. Some of those charges involved the use of deadly force. Persons may not use deadly force if the can retreat with complete safety. But under the "castle doctrine," an exception to the general rule, a person "is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor." N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2)(b)(i). That doctrine derives from the common law....

"Ethics in Appellate Practice" Seminar at the NJSBA Annual Meeting on May 15

I will be moderating a panel titled "Ethics in Appellate Practice" that will help kick off Day 2 of the New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting on May 15. The presentation will be from 8:45-10 AM. It will feature Judge Gummer of the Appellate Division and distinguished appellate practitioners with experience in and perspectives on ethics in the appellate context from both the plaintiffs' and the defendants' sides....

The Appellate Division This Week

The Appellate Division issued four published opinions this week. Here are summaries:...

Indictment of Attorney for State of New Jersey Defendants in an Unrelated Civil Case Did Not Disqualify His Firm From Representing State Defendants There

Mauer v. State of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Plaintiff, a State of New Jersey employee, filed lawsuits against the State, several State agencies, and certain employees of those agencies under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq. The two cases were consolidated. The law firm of Brown & Connery ("B&C") appeared for defendants....

Last Week's Supreme Court and Appellate Division Published Opinions

It's time to catch up with the courts again. Last week, the Supreme Court issued two opinions, while the Appellate Division published one decision. Here are summaries:...

Post-Judgment Interest Presumptively Accrues From the Date That a Judgment is Entered on the Docket

C.E. v. Elzabeth Public School District, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This opinion by Judge Smith today was the second ruling by the Appellate Division in this case. The previous decision was summarized here....

Certified Trial Lawyers May Pay Referral Fees to Out-of-State Counsel, As Such Fees Are Not for Legal Services

In re Opinion No. 745 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, __ N.J. ___ (2025). Rule 1:39-6(d) creates an exception to the general principle, embodied in Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC") 7.2(c) and 7.3(d), that New Jersey attorneys may not pay referral fees, with only limited exceptions. The exception in Rule 1:39-6(d) permits only attorneys who have satisfied the requirements of becoming certified by the Supreme Court in a particular area of practice to pay referral fees....

1234…