Dispute Over Sills Cummis Retainer Heads to High Court
A petition to the court called the issue "a topic affecting this state's entire legal profession."
December 09, 2019 at 05:20 PM
5 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that calls into question what lawyers are obligated to do when presenting a retainer agreement that provides for arbitration of attorney-client disputes.
The court granted a petition for certification in Delaney v. Dickey, which concerns a 2015 retainer executed by Sills Cummis & Gross and a firm client. The agreement, calling for arbitration of any subsequent malpractice or fee claims, was challenged in court. The provision was upheld at the trial court level, but the Appellate Division earlier this year held the provision unenforceable and reversed.
Sills Cummis' Sept. 23 petition for certification to the Supreme Court, granted in a Dec. 5 order, called the issue "a topic affecting this state's entire legal profession," and said the Appellate Division's Aug. 23 ruling "has spurred confusion requiring this Court's attention to cure."
"Without this court's guidance, the professional bar would be left having to guess at how much information to clients (and in what form—oral or written) is enough to properly establish an attorney-client relationship. If there were ever a case warranting this Court's intervention, this is it," the petition, signed by Peter Verniero of Sills Cummis, said.
The plaintiff supported the court's review of the case, according to the response.
"We agree that this issue is of 'general public importance,'" plaintiffs counsel Glenn Bergenfield, a Lambertville solo, wrote in an Oct. 8 letter response. "We urge the Supreme Court to accept this petition and bring clarity to this—that lawyers who seek mandatory arbitration of legal malpractice cases in advance of the legal malpractice are advancing their own interests and unethically harming their clients."
According to court documents, the September 2015 retainer agreement at issue was signed by Sparta real estate developer Brian Delaney, who sought representation from Sills Cummis, specifically from partner Trent Dickey, in connection with a business dispute with his partners in a limited liability company. An arbitration clause toward the end of the three-page retainer provided that any disputes would be submitted to an arbitrator whose ruling would be final. The agreement said any disputes arising from the retainer "will be conducted pursuant to the JAMS/Endispute Arbitration Rules and Procedures (the 'JAMS Rules') then in effect," and listed a website where those rules could be found. Delaney signed the retainer and arbitration clause.
Delaney later terminated Sills Cummis and refused to pay an outstanding bill of more than $400,000. Sills Cummis then initiated arbitration with JAMS in accordance with the retainer agreement. The parties sought to mediate their fee dispute before engaging in discovery in anticipation of a fee arbitration with JAMS. Before the JAMS arbitration started, Delaney filed a malpractice suit against Sills Cummis and Dickey.
An order compelling arbitration was issued below, but on appeal, Appellate Division Judges Carmen Alvarez, William Nugent and Susan Reisner ruled in an unpublished decision that the agreement violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and was unenforceable because it referenced 33 pages of JAMS arbitration rules, yet the client was never given a copy of those rules. "We conclude that because Sills gave plaintiff no explanation about the retainer agreement's or arbitration provision's terms, did not provide plaintiff with the JAMS rules, provided no explanation about the JAMS rules, and watched plaintiff sign the agreement knowing he had not assented to the JAMS rules, this otherwise enforceable agreement runs afoul of two of the ethical rules governing the attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, we find the agreement invalid," the panel said.
Sills Cummis' certification petition said the Appellate Division ruling caused confusion.
"The upshot of this confusion is the suggestion by the Appellate Division that attorneys who have 'watched' a client execute a retainer agreement (the court's word) must now provide an 'explanation' of its terms (again, the court's word), but the court's opinion offers no guidance on the extent of the necessary explanation," Verniero wrote. "Such a result is both unnecessary under the RPCs and inconsistent with the everyday practice of law."
Delaney, while joining in the call for high court review, continues to hold a different position from Sills Cummis on the heart of the issue. Bergenfield's letter response urges the court to "make clear that lawyers in New Jersey cannot sneak into a retainer agreement a mandatory arbitration clause that clearly favors the lawyer—and also marginalizes the judiciary in its oversight of lawyers."
If "'all disputes' between lawyer and client are shunted to private, confidential (non-precedential) arbitration, how will this Court illuminate what it expects of lawyers?" Bergenfield wrote, referring the court to his previous briefs to the Appellate Division.
The court granted the petition in a Dec. 5 order.
Richard Epstein of Sills Cummis, the firm's deputy managing partner and general counsel and one of the firm attorneys involved in the appeal, said the case presents "an important issue … both for the bar of the state of New Jersey and the judges."
Epstein anticipates that Verniero, a retired Supreme Court justice, will serve as lead counsel on the case and will argue it, he said by phone.
"What I think everybody is looking for here is clarity," Epstein added.
Bergenfield, also reached by phone, said the Appellate Division's ruling was narrow and contained "a logical flaw": that the court failed to recognize that the retainer agreement's arbitration provision, while not per se voidable, implicates RPC 1.7, which prohibits conflicts of interest.
Law firms using such provisions should at least be required to advise the signing client that he or she can obtain independent counsel to advise on the retainer and its terms, he said.
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 Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
5 minute readFor Lawyers, the 'Work' of Making an Impact Does Not Have to Happen in a Courtroom. Laura E. Sedlak Says
Doing the Right Thing in the Pursuit of Justice Requires Guts, Says Lyndsay Ruotolo
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending 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