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
Third Circuit Appeals Court Affirms Fine Print Comparative False Advertising Claim
In a precedent setting case that has significant implications for the use of fine print in advertising, Group SEB USA, Inc. v. Euro-Pro Operating, LLC, Case No. 14-2767 (3d Cir. December 17, 2014), the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that small print statements explicitly defining the terms of a more prominent superior performance claim (...
Fraudulent Asset Transfers In New Jersey Divorce Cases
Can assets transferred between soon-to-be ex-spouses as part of a property settlement agreement in their divorce case constitute a fraudulent conveyance?
Our firm is presently representing a judgment creditor of a husband who transferred his 50% interest in his marital residence valued at more than $1 million to his wife for $1.00, as well as ot...
New Jersey Appeals Court Reaffirms Factors Establishing Corporate Successor Liability Under New Jersey Law
In an unpublished decision issued on December 11, 2014, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey was confronted with deciding whether a corporation was the successor in interest to the plaintiff's former commercial tenant such that the corporation should be held liable for tenant's breach of the lease. 40 Eisenhower Drive, LLC v. ...