.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability - CASE LAW UPDATE

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – April 2025

April 1, 2025

by Jeremy J. Zacharias RPLU

Appeals Court Revives $4M Legal Malpractice Suit After Standing Challenge

William J. Focazio, M.D., et al. v. Joseph S. Aboyoun, Esq., et al., NJ. Super. App. Div., A-3587-22, February 24, 2025
    
Dr. Focazio sued his former attorneys for negligent advice in a failed residential construction project, arguing his attorneys did not warn him about contract pitfalls, which led to large deposits without guarantees that work would progress. He claimed his attorneys misadvised him on the cancellation of a contract and sought damages over $4 million. 

The plaintiff had agreements that assigned portions of his potential legal malpractice recovery to third parties, including the architect and replacement attorneys. In their motion to dismiss, the defendants alleged this was an impermissible assignment of legal malpractice claims. They argued the agreements gave the architect and replacement attorneys a pecuniary financial interest in the result of the malpractice action, and such an arrangement placed the defendants in a prejudiced stance in light of the certain bias of a known integral witness to the litigation. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing because the plaintiff assigned his interest in these matters to third parties, and tort claims cannot be assigned prior to judgment. 

The appeals court found that the agreements did not assign the malpractice claim, only a portion of the recovery, and allowed the malpractice case to proceed. The defense argued that these agreements violated public policy and the Rules of Professional Conduct, claiming they improperly gave the third parties a financial interest in the malpractice case. But the court rejected this argument, reasoning that an assignment of anticipated tort proceeds, as opposed to the tort claim itself, is permissible as long as the injured party continues to prosecute the case in their own name. Thus, the agreements were valid as Dr. Focazio retained control over the litigation and would still recover a significant portion of any damages.  


 

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – April 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.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.