Lawyers Must Advise Clients of Other Options Before Billing Hourly on a Fee-Shifting Case, Court Says
"Ethically then, must an attorney whose fee for undertaking an LAD case that includes an hourly rate component explain both the consequences on a recovery and the ability of other competent counsel likely willing to undertake the same representation based on a fee without an hourly component? We conclude the answer is yes," Appellate Division Judge William Nugent said.
August 30, 2018 at 03:06 PM
4 minute read
A New Jersey appeals court has voided a retainer agreement between a lawyer and his longtime friend, saying he did not properly disclose hourly fees he would be charging for representing her in a discrimination case.
The three-judge Appellate Division panel, in a published ruling on Aug. 30, said Somerville solo Brian Cige did not adequately explain the arrangement, which provided for an hourly billing rate and litigation costs, to his client, Lisa Balducci.
The panel said lawyers who wish to charge hourly fees for work on discrimination or other fee-shifting cases must explain to their clients that there are other competent counsel who will accept those cases on a contingency basis, and who also will advance any litigation costs.
“Ethically then, must an attorney whose fee for undertaking an LAD case that includes an hourly rate component explain both the consequences on a recovery and the ability of other competent counsel likely willing to undertake the same representation based on a fee without an hourly component? We conclude the answer is yes,” Appellate Division Judge William Nugent said.
The lawsuit filed by Balducci claimed she never fully reviewed the retainer agreement offered by Cige but was shocked when she began receiving bills for hourly services and costs, which included a $1 fee for reviewing incoming emails and sending responses, the court said.
Balducci eventually fired Cige and hired another attorney to represent her and her son in a Law Against Discrimination claim. The decision didn't reveal the details of that matter,
Nugent, writing for the court, said a Somerset County Assignment Judge Yolanda Ciccone properly found that Cige violated his professional responsibility to explain the agreement's material terms to Balducci so that she could reach an informed decision as to whether to retain him. Thus the retainer agreement was void.
“The hearing recording in this case includes adequate, substantial, credible evidence support the court's decision,” said Nugent. Judges Carmen Alvarez and Richard Geiger joined in the ruling. “There is no dearth of competent counsel attorneys willing to litigate LAD and other fee-shifting cases that do not include an hourly component.
Balducci retained Cige in September 2012 to represent her and her child in the LAD case. Cige presented her with what he said was a standard retainer agreement stating he could charge up to $7,500 up front, plus $450 an hour. Balducci signed the agreement despite having “concerns,” according to the decision.
Balducci began complaining when she began receiving bills from Cige for hourly services plus expenses. He told Balducci to not worry about the bills, because he was using them for purposes of a future fee petition he would demand at the conclusion of what he believed was a successful case.
“We are friends,” Balducci, in depositions, quoted Cige as saying, according to the decision. “I was at your wedding. I would never do this to you. Ignore that. Don't worry about. It is standard info.”
Balducci also complained that she was devoting her time to preparing for depositions while Cige was away attending chess tournaments, the ruling said.
Balducci fired Cige after she complained that it would be impossible for her to advance tens of thousands of dollar for expert witnesses.
Balducci filed a lawsuit against Cige, and he filed a counterclaim seeking more than $286,000 in fees for work he already had done.
“The trial court properly found the agreement was unenforceable and void,” Nugent said.
“There is no dearth of competent, civic-minded attorneys willing to litigate LAD and other statutory fee-shifting cases under fee agreements that do not include an hourly component. The number of such cases litigated in our trial courts and reported in the case law evidence this, as does—at least as to numbers—advertising on television and radio, in telephone books and newspapers, and on billboards and other media,” Nugent wrote, noting that Balducci's current counsel in the LAD case is not charging hourly fees.
Cige, who represented himself, said the ruling was a “strikingly bad decision that is likely to be appealed.”
“There was no discovery. The judge completely believed the testimony of the individual who owed money,” Cige sadi.
Balducci's attorney, Jay Rice of Roseland's Nagel Rice, did not return a telephone call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Division Tosses Challenge to Rutgers Board Members That Ensnared NJ Lawyer
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Einhorn Barbarito; Hartmann Doherty; Lowenstein Sandler; Lindabury McCormick
5 minute read'A More Nuanced Issue': NJ Supreme Court Considers Appellate Rules for Personal Injury Judgments
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250