TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – A New Jersey lawyer won’t be liable for legal malpractice even though he didn’t bother to mount a defense.
That’s the finding of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, which affirmed a Bergen County decision in favor of Lenney Law Firm and Thomas Lenney on Jan. 4. Lenney represented SFI Advisors in a sexual harassment and wrongful termination lawsuit that resulted in a $589,000 verdict.
But when SFI complained that Lenney didn’t adequately warn of the dangers of going to trial, Judge Estela De La Cruz ruled - despite no answer from Lenney and a default judgment that she reopened - SFI failed to produce enough evidence to allege legal malpractice.
Expert evidence isn’t always needed in such a case, the Appellate Division declared, but it was when the circumstances are as complex as SFI’s case.
In fact, a previous New Jersey decision declared “a plaintiff’s attorney who litigates a legal malpractice claim without the opinion testimony of a legal expert unnecessarily exposes his client to a serious risk of dismissal.”
“We agree with the judge that (New Jersey Law Against Discrimination) claims are not so self-evident or simplistic as to allow a factfinder to conclude, without expert opinion, that an attorney’s representation was negligent,” the Appellate Division wrote.
“Judge De La Cruz correctly determined that, given the complex nature of the underlying litigation and the scope of plaintiff’s malpractice allegations, plaintiff should have proven its case with expert testimony on the applicable standard of care and the breach of that standard.”
SFI retained Lenney to defend it from the lawsuit and for matters before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The judgment totaled $589,000 and included punitive damages.
SFI’s co-owner said Lenney never made a counter-offer on settlement after the plaintiff had offered to resolve the case for only $50,000 earlier in the case. SFI rejected the offer because, according to it, Lenney viewed the case as a nuisance lawsuit and declared SFI could either pay the settlement or pay him to fight the allegations.
But Lenney’s stance failed to appreciate the risk of litigating the case through trial, SFI alleged. The company said it would have settled if it knew about outcomes like fee-shifting in case of a loss.
The resulting legal malpractice lawsuit alleged Lenney was incompetent at trial and lacked employment discrimination experience, but courts have now found it failed to back those claims with expert evidence. SFI ended up paying a $400,000 while the NJLAD case was on appeal and while represented by new counsel.