.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyer's Professional Liability - CASE LAW UPDATE

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – September 2023

September 1, 2023

by Jeremy J. Zacharias RPLU

New Jersey Appellate Division affirms decision dismissing a complex legal malpractice action arising out of an underlying first-party coverage action in the United States District Court. 
Morris Properties, Inc. and Kristen Morris v. Jonathan Wheeler, Mario Barnebei and Law Offices of Jonathan Wheeler, P.C., August 22, 2023, New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division

In this case, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against Jonathan Wheeler, Mario Barnebei and the Law Offices of Jonathan Wheeler, P.C., alleging claims for legal malpractice. These claims were in connection with the defendants’ interaction with Morris Properties and Ms. Morris in an underlying lawsuit that concerned the plaintiffs’ right to recover from West American Insurance Company as a result of purported damage suffered on October 29, 2012, from Super Storm Sandy. 

At the close of discovery, a motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of the defendants, asserting that an order for dismissal should be entered. In granting this motion, the trial court held that: 

  1. The plaintiffs’ expert report was lacking in the damages analysis explanation; 
  2. No individual attorney-client relationship existed between Ms. Morris and the defendants to confer standing to Ms. Morris to maintain an individual legal malpractice claim; and 
  3. The plaintiffs’ allegations that the defendants acted with willful and with wanton disregard towards the plaintiffs to support a punitive damages claim was not supported by the record. 

Upon affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division, reviewing de novo the grant of summary judgment, held that the plaintiffs had not established proximate cause, as a matter of law, and that expert testimony was necessary to prove proximate causation and damages. The causal relationship between the defendants’ alleged malpractice, and the plaintiffs’ asserted loss was not so obvious that the trier of fact could have resolved the issue as a matter of common knowledge without the assistance of expert testimony. The court held that the expert’s opinion was an impermissible net opinion, with no evidential weight, since the expert failed to explain the why and wherefore behind the opinion.

The Morris Properties decision is key to many areas of practice since the Appellate Division, in affirming the trial court’s order granting summary judgment, opined on many thorny aspects of litigation, including the parameters of expert reports in legal malpractice claims and the extent that a party could maintain an individual legal malpractice claim when no attorney-client relationship exists. The Appellate Division carefully scrutinized when an attorney owes a duty to a non-client and held, consistent with established precedent, that the grounds on which any plaintiff many pursue a malpractice claim against an attorney with whom there was no attorney-client relationship are exceedingly narrow. See, Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431, 458 (2013); see also, Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 182-83 (2005); Petrillo v. Bachenberg, 139 N.J. 472, 474 (1995). 

This matter involved hundreds of thousands of dollars in building damages caused by Super Storm Sandy and was handled by Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias of our Mount Laurel, New Jersey, office, who were successful before the New Jersey Appellate Division.

 

Mere chance that relationship and lease agreement between lessor and lessee may spark future disputes under lease agreement is not the gauge the court measures whether their interests are directly adverse in local property tax appeals under RPC 1.7(a)(1).
Montclair Hospital, LLC v. Glen Ridge Borough, 2023 WL 4783596

The court’s decision in Montclair is helpful in analyzing when counsel is facing a disqualification motion. The court’s holding reinforces the holding that even if a dual representation may trigger future disputes, this is not the barometer by which the court will use to measure whether party interests are directly adverse to one another under a RPC 1.7(a)(1) analysis.

Glen Ridge Borough sought the entry of an order to disqualify Archer & Greiner, P.C. from serving as counsel for Montclair Hospital, LLC, MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC, and Mountainside Hospital-MPT in commercial real estate tax appeals. The plaintiff (Montclair Hospital, LLC) was the tenant of a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC. On May 19, 2019, Montclair Hospital retained Archer as counsel for the purpose of pursuing property tax appeals. MPT Legacy stated that it, too, was represented by Archer as counsel in the pending property tax appeals and was also seeking a reduction in the assessed value of the subject property for each year under appeal.

In moving to disqualify Archer, Glen Ridge asserted that the interests of Montclair Hospital and MPT Legacy “are not only inherently and concurrently adverse but are intricately entwined in a complicated and ongoing commercial transaction coupled with a complicated and ongoing real estate transaction where large sums of money are at stake, where contracts contain complex contingencies, and where options are numerous.” Glen Ridge argued that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s “bright-line rule” prohibiting certain concurrent representations, as articulated under Baldasarre v. Butler, 132 N.J. 278 (1993), precluded Archer from representing both Montclair Hospital and MPT Legacy, based on a direct adversarial relationship, among other things.

Montclair Hospital asserted that the pendency of the property tax appeals did not provide a significant risk that Archer’s representation of the landlord of the subject property materially limited Archer’s responsibilities to the Montclair Hospital. Similarly, MPT Legacy asserted that it was not aware of any significant risk that materially limited Archer’s ability to fulfill its responsibilities to MPT Legacy as a result of Archer’s representation of the tenant in the appeals.

In response, Archer maintained that Glen Ridge had not meet its burden to justify disqualification and argued that Glen Ridge’s motions were based on a “falsehood” that “the relationship between a landlord and a tenant can only be inherently hostile or adversarial.” 

In analyzing this issue, the court noted that it was undisputed that Archer represented Montclair Hospital and MPT Legacy, the plaintiff and the third-party defendant/counterclaimant in the local property tax appeals. Under an RPC 1.7(a) analysis, the court did not find that Glen Ridge proved that: (1) Archer’s representation of Montclair Hospital in the local property tax appeal matters was “directly adverse” to MPT Legacy, or (2) Archer’s representation of MPT Legacy in the local property tax matters was “directly adverse” to Montclair Hospital under RPC 1.7(a)(1).

The court held that, while Glen Ridge correctly pointed out that the relationship between MPT Legacy and Montclair Hospital was that of lessor and lessee, that fact standing alone did not inevitably lead the court to conclude that they are “directly adverse.” The mere possibility that the relationship and lease agreement between Montclair Hospital and MPT Legacy may trigger future disputes involving the rent payable or other obligations under the lease agreement was not the barometer by which the court measured whether their interests are directly adverse in the local property tax appeal matters under RPC 1.7(a)(1).
 

 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – September 2023 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 © 2023 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

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.