Ross Begelman of Begelman & Orlow. Courtesy video image.

A New Jersey appeals court has ordered a law firm based in South Jersey and Pennsylvania to refund $1,250 it charged a former partner who asked to be taken out of its promotional videos, but the judges had less sympathy for the lawyer's request to delete a scene depicting the back of his head, saying the court does not involve itself in “trifles.”

The Superior Court's Appellate Division said the firm can't stick its former partner with a portion of the cost of removing his name and likeness from a marketing video, but also found the departing lawyer's right to have his image scrubbed from his former firm's marketing videos does not extend to one offering only a glimpse of the back of his head.

The dispute over promotional videos arose between attorney Paul Melletz and the firm formerly known as Begelman, Orlow & Melletz. After nine years at the firm, Melletz resigned in January 2017 and later filed a suit claiming the firm failed to repay loans he made to his fellow partners. The firm, now known as Begelman & Orlow, has offices in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and Conshohocken, and lists four lawyers on its website.

Melletz and his former firm entered a consent order in March 2017 requiring it to remove from its website any reference to Melletz, any images of him, and to cease using his name in any way. In June 2018, Melletz filed a motion to enforce litigant's rights, seeking the removal of his name and image from the firm's website.

Begelman & Orlow said that the cost of removing Melletz from its videos would cost $2,500, and Judge Janet Smith, in Burlington County Superior Court, ruled that Melletz and the firm should each pay $1,250. Smith also rejected Melletz's request that the firm edit the portion of a video showing the back of his head.

On appeal, Judges Joseph Yannotti and Robert Gilson said Smith's decision to split the cost of editing the videos was inconsistent with the consent order, which is, in essence, an agreement between the parties. In the consent order, the defendant agrees to remove all references to the plaintiff from its website, without any requirement that the plaintiff share in the editing cost, the judges said. Accordingly, they reversed that provision and ordered the firm to refund Melletz's $1,250.

But Yannotti and Gilson said Smith did not abuse her discretion in denying the plaintiff's request for removal of a video showing the back of his head. That segment of the video shows a man sitting at a conference table with several other people. The focus is on another lawyer sitting across the table. No mention of Melletz's name is made, and he is not identified as a member of the firm. The viewer can see “the back of a man's head, his left ear, a portion of his left cheekbone, a portion of his glasses, and his left shoulder. No facial features are shown, so that most people are unlikely to recognize Melletz,” the appeals court said.

“Accordingly, the trial court was correct in denying plaintiff's request under the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex, or 'the law does not concern itself with trifles,'” Yannotti and Gilson wrote.

When Melletz left the firm, he joined a Mount Laurel, New Jersey, outfit now known as Gerstein, Grayson, Cohen & Melletz. His suit against his former firm claimed it failed to repay him $225,000 that he loaned it. Smith granted partial summary judgment to Melletz on the loans in November 2017.

Melletz, who represented himself in the litigation, did not return a call about the case. Regina Poserina of Begelman & Orlow, who represented her firm, also did not respond to a request for comment.