The New Jersey State Bar Association will urge the state Supreme Court to limit attorney liability for malpractice against non-clients and not expand liability beyond what is already identified in existing case law. NJSBA Second Vice President Diana Manning will present oral argument on Monday in Christakos v. Boyadjis on behalf of the NJSBA amicus curiae.
At issue is whether an attorney owed a duty to a non-client who was the potential beneficiary of a will drafted for an uncle, the client of the attorney alleged to have committed malpractice. The Appellate Division dismissed the legal malpractice claims, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
“Under well-settled New Jersey law, the duty an attorney owes in a malpractice context is generally confined to the client,” the NJSBA said in its brief written by Manning and NJSBA members Benjamin J. DiLorenzo and Kyle A. Valente. “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that the grounds on which any plaintiff may pursue a malpractice claim against an attorney with whom there was no attorney-client relationship are ‘exceedingly narrow.’”
The Association will also argue that the potential for counsel fee awards, known as Saffer fees, should not be expanded to non-clients beyond the already-established limited exception where an attorney intentionally breaches a fiduciary duty owed to the non-client. A prevailing party in an attorney malpractice case may recoup counsel fees based on a Supreme Court ruling that recognized legal fees as “consequential damages that are proximately related to the malpractice.” Saffer v. Willoughby, 143 N.J. 256 (1996). The NJSBA said in its brief that there is no “cognizable imperative for the expansion of an award of Saffer fees beyond those limited exceptions identified in existing case law.”
Read the NJSBA’s brief here.
Court Issues New ‘Notice to Debtor’ Form; Clarifies Role of Special Civil Part Officers
A new “Notice to Debtor” form for use in Special Civil Part cases has been established by the Supreme Court, effective Sept. 30, that includes information for the debtor about the availability of the status of judgments on the Judiciary’s website. In a Notice to the Bar, the Court advised the form promulgates recent revisions to Appendix VI of the Court Rules.
In the notice, the Court also clarified that Special Civil Part Officers are officers of the court, but are not judiciary employees. Directive #5-05, accompanying the notice, explains that Special Civil Part Officers are independent contractors appointed by order of the Assignment Judge. The directive clarifies the role of Special Civil Part Officers, the responsibilities they may undertake, how they are paid and the requirements for the position.
Read the full notice here.