Referral Fees and Another Affidavit of Merit Case Will be Before the Supreme Court | NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

The Supreme Court has announced that it has granted review in two new matters. One is on a familiar subject: affidavits of merit in professional liability cases. The other involves the ethics of referral fees.

The referral fee matter is In re Opinion No. 745 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics. The Court granted a petition for review in this case. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “May a certified trial attorney pay referral fees to out-of-state lawyers under the New Jersey Rules of Court and the Rules of Professional Conduct?” The Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics held that certified civil trial attorneys generally may not pay referral fees to out-of-state lawyers.

The affidavit of merit case is Wiggins v. Hackensack Meridian Health, in which the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The question presented there is “In this medical malpractice matter in which the treating doctor was board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology, was plaintiffs’ affidavit of merit from a doctor board certified in internal medicine sufficient?” As summarized here, in an opinion reported at 478 N.J. Super. 355 (App. Div. 2024), a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division ruled that the affidavit of merit was not sufficient, as the affiant needed to be certified in both of the defendant doctor’s specialties. The appeal appears to center on the proper interpretation of Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377 (2011). The Supreme Court can now tell everyone which approach to Buck is proper.

"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....

The "Castle Doctrine"

State v. Bragg, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). A jury found defendant guilty of twelve charged counts, including attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, endangering, and two lesser-included offenses of harassment. Some of those charges involved the use of deadly force. Persons may not use deadly force if the can retreat with complete safety. But under the "castle doctrine," an exception to the general rule, a person "is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor." N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2)(b)(i). That doctrine derives from the common law....

No Arbitrariness in Rejection of Public Construction Bid That Failed to Include a Properly Signed, Required Consent of Surety

In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp., Contract T100.638, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This public bidding case resulted in a 5-2 split at the Supreme Court, the first non-unanimous ruling of the current Term. Justice Hoffman wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Fasciale authored the dissent for himself and Justice Pierre-Louis....