Due to a personal matter, there have been no posts on this blog since June 2. This post will summarize some of the decisions from our appellate courts since that date. Separately, Governor Murphy nominated Fabiana Pierre-Louis to fill the Supreme Court seat currently held by Justice Timpone when he reaches retirement age in November of this year. A separate post, on another day, will discuss that nomination. Finally, the Supreme Court granted certification in one new case, Haley v. Board of Review. The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is...

Balducci v. Cige, ___ N.J. ___ (2020). In this case, as discussed here, the Appellate Division invalidated a retainer agreement in an opinion reported at 456 N.J. Super. 219 (App. Div. 2018). The panel also made some broad statements about how attorneys should conduct themselves in connection with retainer agreements in contingent fee matters, such as the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-2 et seq. (“LAD”), which was at issue in the underlying action. Today, the Supreme Court, having granted certification and received amicus briefs from three Bar associations on the...

On this date in 1962, the Supreme Court decided Sarner v. Sarner, 38 N.J. 463 (1962). The Court’s unanimous decision there, along with Sunset Beach Amusement Corp. v. Belk, 33 N.J. 162 (1960), on which Sarner relied extensively, is a foundation stone of the “fund in court” doctrine. That doctrine is currently embodied in Rule 4:42-9(a)(2), but was also contained in the predecessor rule that governed in Sarner. The fund in court doctrine is one basis for an award of attorneys’ fees. As Justice Schettino stated in Sarner, “[t]he term ‘fund in court’ is...