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

To Start the Week, A Catch-Up Post

While the Supreme Court has been quiet since it handed down this decision, the Appellate Division has issued six published opinions during the recent period. Here are summaries of those...

The Civil Practice Committee Recommends One Appellate Rule Change

The Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee has issued its 2024 report, which addresses recommended changes to Court Rules as well as Rule change proposals not recommended. The report is available...

Two Published Opinions From the Appellate Division

So far this week, the Appellate Division has issued two published opinions. Here are summaries: 257-261 20th Avenue Realty, LLC v. Roberto, 477 N.J. Super. 339 (App. Div. 2023). This...

Relevant Statutes Bar Attempt to Compel Office of Adult Protective Services to Pay Fees of Court-Appointed Attorney and Temporary Guardian in Guardianship Case

In re A.D., 477 N.J. Super. 288 (App. Div. 2023). In this appeal, an attorney and a temporary guardian sought fees for their services. The Law Division had denied their...

Another Short Week, and Another Catch-Up Post

In the past two weeks, an Appellate Division brief and a Supreme Court petition consumed much time. So, in this shortened Thanksgiving week, it's time to catch up on the...

The Limits of the Offer of Judgment Rule

J.P. Electric, Inc. v. LPMG Construction Management, LLC, 477 N.J. Super. 125 (App. Div. 2023). Judge Sabatino frequently writes long, intricate opinions on complex issues. Today, however, he authored the...

The Anniversary of In re Robertelli

On this date in 2021, the Supreme Court decided In re Robertelli, 248 N.J. 293 (2021). As discussed here, the case had been before the Court once before, on the...

As the New Term Begins, Reminders From the Appellate Division About Oral Argument

The Appellate Division has issued this Notice to the Bar It contains important reminders about several matters relating to oral argument in that court. First, the Notice states that appeals...

"510(k)" Evidence Was Improperly Excluded in Products Liability Matters, Requiring New Trial

Hrymoc v. Ethicon, Inc., 254 N.J. 446 (2023). As explained in more detail here, this was a products liability case involving "pelvic mesh" devices. (Actually, there were two consolidated cases,...

A Busy Day at the Supreme Court- Six New Grants of Review

The Supreme Court announced that it has taken up six new cases. The Court granted certification in four of those matters. One case is before the Court on a grant...

1 2 34…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....