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

Attorneys' Liens

Schepisi & McLaughlin, P.A. v. Lofaro, 430 N.J. Super. 347 (App. Div. 2013). In this decision by Judge Kennedy, the Appellate Division reversed rulings of the Law Division because, among other things, the...

Fewer Trees Must Die, Says the Third Circuit

Yesterday, the Third Circuit issued an Order, which is effective tomorrow, May 1, that reduces the number of paper copies of briefs that must be filed. Currently, Local Appellate Rule...

Unnecessary Supersedeas Bond Legislation Redux

Yesterday, Senate Bill 2052 was proposed for introduction. The legislation would limit the amount of an appeal bond in civil actions to $50 million. This same legislation was proposed in 2012,...

Administrative Professionals' Day

Today is Administrative Professionals' Day, an occasion that when first instituted was known as Secretaries' Day but has since evolved, wisely, into its current form. Even more than most attorneys,...

Judicial Sarcasm and Rule 68

Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S.Ct. 1523 (2013). Of all the current sitting Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Scalia is the one who would normally...

Trial Judge Erred in Limiting Medical Malpractice Plaintiff to One Expert Only

McLean v. Liberty Health System, 430 N.J. Super. 156 (App. Div. 2013). This opinion by Judge Ashrafi addresses a number of evidence issues. The most important, however, relates to the decision of...

A Jury, Not a Judge, Must Decide Contested Tort Claims Act Issue of Whether a Public Entity Exercised Discretionary Decisionmaking or Undertook a Mere Ministerial Act

Henebema v. South Jersey Transportation Authority, 430 N.J. Super. 485 (App. Div. 2013). The key issue in this case, in which the opinion of the Appellate Division was written by Judge Fasciale, was...

New Jersey Law Firms May Now Use Some Trade Names

In re Letter Decision of the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Docket No. 47-2007, 213 N.J. 171 (2013). New Jersey Rule of Professional Conduct 7.5 requires that a law firm's name "include the...

If Your Client Switches Attorneys, It'll be Hard to Sue the New Lawyer for Tortious Interference

Nostrame v. Santiago, 213 N.J. 109 (2013). When a personal injury plaintiff in a potentially big case switches attorneys, the attorney being replaced may see a potentially large fee disappearing. It is...

A Smorgasbord, Courtesy of Judge Fisher: Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, and Service of Process

Tatham v. Tatham, 429 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 2013). It is not often that a family law opinion touches on so many fundamental procedural issues. This opinion by Judge Fisher addresses...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 303132 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....