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

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....

When Can Anticipated Proceeds of a Tort Claim be Assigned?

. Focazio, M.D. v. Arthur St. Realty, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). As Judge Vinci stated in his opinion for the Appellate Division in this case, "[i]t has long been the rule in New Jersey that a tort claim cannot be assigned prior to judgment." This case, which alleged legal malpractice, centered on agreements that plaintiff entered into with the opposing party in the lawsuit that underlay the malpractice action ("Tsairis") and with his attorneys in that lawsuit....

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....

Appellate Division Oral Arguments of the Week: Three Attorneys' Fee Appeals

This week's oral argument of the week comprises appeals involving awards of attorneys' fees in three different cases. In two of the cases, appellants argue that fee awards should be...

Insurance, Attorneys' Fees in a Common Law Right of Access to Public Documents Case, and Expungement Under the Cannabis Act Will be Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in three new cases. Two of them, both civil matters, were grants of certification. The third appeal, a criminal case, is...

Attorneys' Fees Under the Common Law Right of Access

Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC v. Township of Neptune, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Prudent practitioners who file cases under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et...

Attorneys' Fees Improper Where Neither Contract, Statute, Court Rule, Nor the Equities Supported a Fee Award

Tarta Luna Properties, LLC v. Harvest Restaurants Group, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). In summary, the parties entered into a long-term lease of a restaurant space, to...

A Lesson About Class Counsel's Attorneys' Fees From Judge Gooden Brown

Seigelstein v. Shrewsbury Motors, Inc., 464 N.J. Super. 393 (App. Div. 2020). When class action cases settle with a benefit to the class, class counsel, who normally handle those cases...

Filing a Criminal Complaint as a Means of Collecting on an Invoice is an Unconscionable Commercial Practice That Warrants Attorneys' Fees Under the Consumer Fraud Act

Jacobs v. Lindsay and Son Plumbing and Heating, Inc., 458 N.J. Super. 194 (App. Div. 2019). The defendant in this appeal, Mark Lindsay and Son Plumbing & Heating, Inc. ("MLSP")...

High-Low Agreement Did Not Permit Plaintiff to Recover Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Above the "High" Figure

Serico v. Rothberg, 234 N.J. 168 (2018). As discussed here, last year, the Appellate Division ruled in this medical malpractice case that a "high-low agreement" is a contract, and that...

12 3…Last

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?

"Hot Fun in the Summertime": Appellate Division Summer Parts

In an Order available here, Chief Justice Rabner announced the lineup for the Appellate Division's summer Parts. As has been customary, the "summer" runs not between the meteorological start and end dates for summer, nor from Memorial Day to Labor Day, but from June 16 through September 7....

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....