NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

A New Rule, 2:9-14, is Promulgated Regarding Supreme Court Review of Orders Granting Pretrial Detention

This morning, the Supreme Court published a notice to the Bar, available here, regarding a new Court Rule that addresses review by the Court of Appellate Division rulings regarding pretrial...

An Intervention Dispute: Is a Denial of a Motion to Intervene Immediately Appealable?

HUNY & BH Associates v. Silberberg, 447 N.J. Super. 606 (App. Div. 2016). This 2-1 decision of the Appellate Division, issued today, is a rare published opinion on a motion...

The "Tender Years" Hearsay Exception

State of New Jersey in the Interest of A.R., 447 N.J. Super. 485 (App. Div. 2016). Judge Sabatino teaches at Rutgers-Camden Law School. Students there pay to be educated by...

An Attorney Disqualification Mess

Estate of Francis P. Kennedy v. Rosenblatt, 447 N.J. Super. 444 (App. Div. 2016). Judge Nugent's decision for the Appellate Division in this case today encapsulated in its opening paragraph...

The Seven "C's" of Ethical Appellate Practice

I have posted elsewhere about the "four C's" for New Jersey Bar applicants before the Supreme Court Committee on Character. At last night's meeting of the New Jersey State Bar...

Another Failed Effort to Compel Arbitration

Midland Funding, LLC v. Bordeaux, 447 N.J. Super. 330 (App. Div. 2016). This was a small claims case in which plaintiff sought to collect a consumer debt as to which...

Certain Frivolous Litigation Sanctions are Reversed, But One Such Sanction is Affirmed

Tagayun v. AmeriChoice of New Jersey, Inc., 446 N.J. Super. 570 (App. Div. 2016). As Judge Higbee noted in her opinion for the Appellate Division today, Rule 1:4-8 or N.J.S.A....

A Reminder From the Appellate Division About Recent Appellate Rule Changes

This morning, the Appellate Division published a notice to the bar that was dated August 26, 2016. That notice is available here. The intent of the notice is to highlight...

Procedural Updates to Appellate Division Opinions and Forms

Today, the Appellate Division published a notice to the bar that was dated August 17, 2016. That notice can be found here. The notice advises of several procedural refinements that...

Amendments to the New Jersey Appellate Rules of Court, to be Effective on September 1, 2016

Today, the Supreme Court published an order dated August 1, 2016, which announced amendments to various court rules, all of which will take effect on September 1, 2016. That announcement...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 192021 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41…Last

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....

Four Criminal Law Cases, and a Qui Tam Appeal, for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review in five new appeals. One of them is before the Court on leave to appeal, while in the others the Court granted certification....

The "Limited Attorney Exemption" of the Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act is Held Unconstitutional as Violative of the Separation of Powers and Void for Vagueness

Anchor Law Firm, PLLC v. State of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1 et seq. ("DACCA"), prohibits debt adjusters in New Jersey from operating for a profit. There is an exception for attorneys not "principally engaged" (a term not defined in the statute) in debt adjustment. That exception, adopted in a 1986 amendment, replaced a prior version of the DACCA that had exempted all attorneys from its scope....

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....