Jeremy J. Zacharias RPLU

Jack and Jeremy successfully defended an appeal arising out of a legal malpractice/securities action in which they were successful at the trial level. The case is noteworthy here because, for the first time in New Jersey in a legal malpractice action arising out of a securities case, the court applied New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine and dismissed the complaint.

In Quigley v. Lesicki, et al., A-3838-23 (App. Div. October 8, 2025), the plaintiff alleged he was misled into purchasing shares and entering into financial agreements without proper legal representation, leading to his default on a Promissory Note. The defendant, through its counsel, and the defendant attorneys, through Jack and Jeremy, moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by the entire controversy doctrine and collateral estoppel. 

The trial court found that the plaintiff was aware of the alleged misconduct by the defendants during prior litigation in Camden County in 2018 and 2019 and opined that he should have raised his claims at that time. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the claims were transactionally related to the earlier action, and were precluded by the doctrines of entire controversy and collateral estoppel. 

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court misapplied those doctrines. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing that the plaintiff’s claims were part of a single controversy that should have been litigated in the earlier actions. The Appellate Division emphasized that the plaintiff had the opportunity to raise the claims during the earlier 2018 litigation in Camden County but failed to do so and, thus, his current claims were barred.

Accordingly, this decision is extremely important in connection with the defense of attorneys arising out of or associated with breach of contract and securities cases. 

---

^{Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – October 31, 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}