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...

Even as the Appellate Division wound down the number of its published opinions in the second half of August, the Third Circuit seemed to rev up its publication of opinions. From August 14 through August 29, the court published thirteen opinions. Here are summaries of some of them (for full coverage of all of the court’s activities, check out Matthew Stiegler’s CA3blog): Golden v. New Jersey Institute of Technology, 934 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2019). This opinion by Chief Judge Smith involved an attorneys’ fee issue under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A....