I recently addressed how the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Pinto v. Spectrum Chems. and Laboratory Prods., 985 A.2d 1239 (2010), both (i) left open the question of what a public interest law firm is, and (ii) provides an opportunity for private public interest law firms to do well by doing good. In Pinto, a unanimous court held that public interest lawyers and defendants may simultaneously negotiate a case’s merits and attorney fees when attempting to settle claims under fee-shifting statutes. However, the court held that when such cases involve a public interest law firm, defendants may not insist on a fee waiver.

A second open question after Pinto—one which to date has not been formally addressed by a New Jersey court—is whether plaintiffs’ counsel must avoid such “bundled” settlement offers as an ethical matter because they result in a conflict between the lawyer’s interests and the client’s, in violation of New Jersey Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]