Entire Controversy Doctrine: Loophole Allows For Second Bite Of The Apple
Consider this hypothetical: Plaintiff accounting firm (“Accounting Firm”) files a collection suit (“Action 1”) against defendant limited liability company (“LLC”) for nonpayment of invoices. In LLC’s answer to the Accounting Firm’s Complaint, LLC raises professional negligence as an “affirmative defense.” LLC fails to retain...
Tagged in: accountant collection action, Accountants book account, Affidavit of Merit, application of new jersey's entire controversy doctrine, Book Account, circumventing entire controversy doctrine, Entire Controversy Doctrine, entire controversy doctrine loophole, entire controversy doctrine prevents litigants from getting two bites of the apple, entire controversy doctrine second bite of apple, entire controversy doctrine's application to cases pending simultaneously, extending discovery deadlines, failure to serve expert report, malpractice claims arising out of core set of facts, subsequent proceedings subject to entire controversy doctrine
New Jersey Appeals Court Applies Net Opinion Rule to Bar Legal Malpractice Expert’s Report
In an unpublished decision issued on March 11, 2015, the New Jersey Appellate Division applied the "net opinion" rule in barring an expert's report issued in the context of a legal malpractice case arising out of a failed real estate transaction. Giordano v. Bogart, Keane, Ryan & Hamill, L.L.C., Docket No. A-1631-13T1 (App. Div., March 11, 2015...
Pitfalls of Terminating New Jersey Minority Shareholder’s Employment
TERMINATING YOUR MINORITY PARTNER’S EMPLOYMENT IN A CLOSELY HELD NEW JERSEY CORPORATION COULD TRIGGER MINORITY OPPRESSION
Do you have a minority partner in a small business that is driving you crazy to the point where you can't even walk into your office without getting a knot in your stomach? If you think the simple solution is to just termin...
Medical Experts Beware: If You Consult With A Law Firm And Then Agree To Be Retained By Their Adversary You May Be Disqualified From The Case
Assume the following scenario. An attorney representing a party in a lawsuit challenging the probate of a contested will consults with a medical expert, describing the facts of the case, sharing his mental impressions and discussing trial strategies. The client decides not to hire the expert. The same doctor then consults with the attorney ...
Tagged in: 126 N.J. 261 (1991), 156 F.R.D. 575 (D.N.J. 1994), 412 N.J. Super. 374 (App. Div. 2010), balance of the competing policy objectives in determining expert disqualification, barring attorney in NJ, barring expert witness NJ, barring expert witness under new jersey court rule 4:10-2(d)(3), barring experts in New Jersey, barring experts opining on mental capacity new jersey, barring medical expert in probate case new jersey, Carchidi v. Iavicoli, Cordy test, Cordy v. Sherwin-Williams Co., disqualification of attorney in New Jersey, disqualification of medical expert in New Jersey, expectation of confidential relationship, expert report barred from trial in NJ, experts failure to disclose consultation to adversary, experts with a prior relationship with an adverse party may be disqualified under the attorney-client privilege and fundamental fairness, Graham rule barring consulting expert, Graham v. Gielchinsky, objectively reasonable for first party who retained expert to believe that confidential relationship existed, party disclosed confidential information to expert, psychatrist barred from testifying at trial