BAR REPORT - Capitol Report
Supreme Court to consider fee-shifting provisions in retainer agreements
October 28, 2019 at 08:02 AM
3 minute read
Supreme Court to Consider Fee-Shifting Provisions in Retainer Agreements
The New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) argued that the Appellate Division engaged in improper rulemaking when it held that an attorney was obligated by the Rules of Professional Conduct to communicate clearly that his fee structure was different from what other attorneys might offer, in that the plaintiff would be obligated to pay regardless of the success of her case. Edward Zohn argued the matter on behalf of the NJSBA as amicus curiae in Balducci v. Cige, Docket A-3068-16T2. The brief was written by Zohn, William E. Denver, and past NJSBA president Thomas H. Prol.
The underlying matter challenges the validity of a retainer agreement of attorney Brian Cige, who handled a matter for the son of the plaintiff, Lisa Balducci. Balducci signed a retainer agreement that proposed a fee of either the greater of an hourly rate, 37.5 percent of the net recovery or the statutory fees, by settlement or award. Balducci terminated the attorney-client relationship and received a bill for fees and expenses in the amount of nearly $287,000.
In the published decision of the Appellate Division, it was held that Cige was obligated by the Rules of Professional Conduct to communicate clearly that his fee structure was different, in that the plaintiff would be obligated to pay regardless of the success of her case. The court further held that attorneys must tell clients that if a case becomes too complex, an hourly rate-based fee could approach or even exceed any recovery, and advise of other attorneys who would represent the client on a purely contingency fee basis.
Arguing that the decision will have a substantial impact on solo and small firm practitioners, the NJSBA argued that the new ethical mandates for attorney fee-shifting cases should not be upheld.
"If attorneys are either induced into representing clients in fee-shifting cases solely on contingency, or are forced to find and suggest other attorneys who would, the Appellate Division's understandable desire to ensure that clients are compensated for economic and non-economic loss will be turned on its head," wrote the NJSBA.
The NJSBA further underscored the inappropriateness of amending the Rules of Professional Conduct in this manner, without pursuing the full vetting of a proposed change that would be afforded by the Court Rules review process.
|NJSBA Town Hall Highlights NJSBA Advocacy Through Section and Committee Involvement
Leading into the NJSBA Fall Open House, the Town Hall Advocacy continuing legal education program "From Idea to Law: A Practical Discussion With Legislators" features a panel discussion on the impact of advocacy on the practice of law. The NJSBA welcomes Senator Linda R. Greenstein, Assemblyman Erik Peterson, Assembly Republican Counsel Kevin Logan, and NJSBA Treasurer Timothy McGoughran. Listen to them share their experiences with how to make policy into law and how it impacts the practice of law and your clients.
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
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute read'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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