Jeremy J. Zacharias RPLU

On October 23, 2025, Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias, of our Mount Laurel, NJ office, secured an important decision in the New Jersey Appellate Division on behalf of a law firm and its attorneys. In this action, they successfully defended a multitude of allegations, including claims for violations of the rules of professional conduct, breach of contract, conspiracy to commit fraud, conversion, tortious interference of the contractual relations and perspective economic advantage. 

These claims were based on the contention that the attorneys and a national home builder deprived the plaintiffs (investors) of the opportunity to construct an affordable housing development in Gloucester County, New Jersey. After the plaintiffs lost an earlier action we had defended arising out of the same proposed housing development, and while their appeal was pending, the plaintiffs filed another complaint against our clients and the home builder, again alleging legal malpractice, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, conspiracy to commit RICO, conspiracy to commit fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting fraud. 

Jack and Jeremy moved for summary judgment on the grounds of the entire controversy doctrine, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court granted their motions, and the plaintiffs appealed. In this opinion, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court, finding the purpose of the entire controversy doctrine is to encourage comprehensive and conclusive litigation determinations, avoid fragmentation of litigation, promote party fairness and judicial efficiency. That rule is codified in New Jersey under R 4:30A(1). 

Jack and Jeremy noted that in the earlier action, the plaintiff had 12 years worth of litigation regarding the housing development and had a fair and reasonable opportunity to fully litigate their claims. The first case commenced in 2011. The parties were basically the same. The newly filed complaint arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the initial complaint—the same development. In addition, the first case ended with a valid final judgment on the merits, where the claims were fully adjudicated. 

The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not get another bite at the apple simply because the first case was pending when the latter case was filed. The Appellate Division aptly noted that the trial court found all the allegations should have been in one litigation, stating the case was the “poster child” for why we have the entire controversy doctrine and res judicata in New Jersey.  

---

^{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.}