Here is a divorce legal malpractice legal fee case from the upper reaches of NJ society, complete with client meetings at the country club, promises to pay for the divorces of others, vindictive hiring of attorneys…you name it.

By way of background, on August 18, 1997, defendant retained plaintiff to represent him in a contentious divorce action already underway and involving substantial marital assets. At the time, defendant and his wife were separated and defendant was residing with Moran and her children, one of whom was the daughter of John Izmirlian, from whom Moran had already been divorced.

Defendant’s own matrimonial dispute was scheduled for trial on May 19, 1998, less than nine months after plaintiff was retained. Rather than proceed to trial, defendant and his former wife elected to engage in settlement negotiations and after two days, on May 21, 1998, reached an agreement. A final judgment of divorce was entered the next day, May 22nd, after a hearing in which the terms of the property settlement agreement (PSA) were placed on the record and the parties testified they entered into it knowingly, freely and competently.

Defendant also appeals from an October 28, 2005 order of final judgment holding him liable for fees and costs incurred by plaintiff on behalf of Moran. The genesis of that matter was in late January-early February, 1999 when, during the course of his own post-divorce litigation, defendant arranged a meeting with plaintiff and Moran to discuss plaintiff’s representation of Moran in a post-divorce action initiated by Moran’s former husband Izmirlian. Earlier, defendant had conveyed to plaintiff his opinions that Izmirlian was dishonest, concealing his income from both the Internal Revenue Service and Moran, and that he should be made to pay all the child support for the daughter then living with defendant and Moran. By all accounts, that meeting was held at a local country club and thereafter, on February 5, 1999, plaintiff and Moran signed a retainer agreement.

According to plaintiff, the meeting lasted two hours during which they talked almost exclusively about Moran’s legal situation. Defendant once again mentioned that Izmirlian was attempting to hide his finances and that he wanted to ensure Izmirlian paid his support obligations. Moran said she was unable to pay for plaintiff’s services and plaintiff herself knew that Moran had no steady means of supporting herself, that Izmirlian had no money, and that Moran had previously discharged a fee obligation of approximately $15,000 in bankruptcy proceedings. Consequently, plaintiff raised the issue of payment, asserting that litigation would be expensive and that she could not proceed without payment. According to plaintiff, defendant assured her that he was "willing to throw some money at this, so that that little prick pays to support his kid." With that assurance, plaintiff entered into a retainer agreement, and commenced preliminary work on the case, including arranging a meeting between the parties, which turned out to be unproductive.

The following day, May 23rd, defendant, apparently concerned for his former wife, agreed to renegotiate the PSA, however, these negotiations eventually proved unavailing. As a result, defendant’s former wife moved to set aside the PSA and a twenty-two day plenary hearing ensued in which she claimed she was under duress at the time. At the conclusion of the evidence, Judge Cass denied the application to set aside the PSA, finding it was fair and reasonable and not the product of duress or incompetence. "  Read the rest!