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

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....

A New Required Certification for Appellate Briefs

The Supreme Court's September 4, 2024 Order providing for the posting online of most Appellate Division and Supreme Court briefs in argued cases, discussed here, has led to an interim...

Judge Sabatino to Deliver the Weintraub Lecture at Rutgers Law School- Newark

The Annual Chief Justice Joseph Weintraub Lecture at Rutgers Law School in Newark has long been one of the premier events in the New Jersey legal community. The Law School...

The 45th Anniversary of Gilborges v. Wallace

On this date in 1978, the Supreme Court decided Gilborges v. Wallace, 78 N.J. 342 (1978). The case arose out of an auto accident that resulted in brain injuries to...

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...

No Need for Attorney Retainer Agreements to State Expressly That Billing Will be in Tenths of an Hour or Other Increments

Arbus, Maybruch & Goode, LLC v. Cohen, 475 N.J. Super. 509 (App. Div. 2023). In this suit by a law firm to collect its fee from a client (actually, an...

Willingboro Mall Rule That Settlements in Mediation Must be Reduced to Writing and Signed at the Mediation Applies to Voluntary Mediations as Well as Court-Ordered Ones

Gold Tree Spa, Inc. v. PD Nail Corp., 475 N.J. Super. 240 (App. Div. 2023). In Willingboro Mall, Ltd. v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., LLC, 215 N.J. 242 (2013), the Supreme...

A Lesson in Attorneys' Fee Applications From Justice Patterson

Hansen v. Rite Aid Corp., 253 N.J. 191 (2023). This opinion by Justice Patterson for a 5-0 Supreme Court (Justice Fasciale did not participate) reaffirms the attorneys' fee award principles...

Another "Kind for Kind" Affidavit of Merit Decision

Pfannenstein v. Surrey, 475 N.J. Super. 83 (App. Div. 2023). At least since Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377 (2011), and Nicholas v. Mynster, 216 N.J. 463 (2013), New Jersey's...

12 3 4…Last

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

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....