.

Case Law Alerts

NJ Appellate Division remands for a “more robust application” of Ullmann test in light of discovery demands seeking the production of business entity tax returns.

Parkinson v. Diamond Chemical Company, Inc., No. A-2639-20, 2021 WL 4977739, (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 27, 2021)

January 3, 2022

by Michelle N. Michael

This matter involved a discovery dispute in a wrongful discharge employment matter. During discovery, the plaintiff sought the production of the tax returns and financial statements of his former employer, a closely-held corporation. During motion practice, the plaintiff argued that the test articulated in Ullmann v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 87 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1965), which sets forth a “rigorous set of standards” for the production of income tax returns, is not applicable to a business entity. The trial court approved of this reasoning and also found that the plaintiff, nonetheless, satisfied the Ullmann test. 

On appeal, the Appellate Division found that “the tax filings of corporations and other businesses receive the same presumption of confidentiality as individual tax records, and that the Ullmann test applies to them as well.” The court further found that the trial court did not adequately apply the heightened standard articulated in Ullman and remanded for a “more robust application of this standard[,]” in addition to whether the disclosure of non-tax financial records is warranted. 

In light of this decision, defense counsel should be cognizant of the heightened standard which applies to the production of corporate tax returns. 
 

 

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

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.