The facts of thiscase are sad. DR. GARY SAFIER, Plaintiff v.  WALDER, SONDAK & BROGAN, P.C.,
JUSTIN WALDER, ESQ. and JOHN BROGAN, ESQ., and AMBROSIO, KYREAKAKIS & DI LORENZO, 

Doctor knowingly prescribes narcotics to a wealthy addict for years, and nets a hue of money for doing so.  Another doctor turns him in, and he ends up working his way into a diversion program.  His attorneys save the doctor’s license, and then sue for their unpaid fees.

Doctor resists, sues for legal malpractice and for a number of interesting reasons, loses. One reason for losing is his repeated habit of not paying lawyers and experts.  When the fee arbitration goes sour, he sues his next set of attorneys.  Not only does he lose there, but he is assessed $ 36,000 in sanctions, which is eventually washed away.

"As a final matter in this regard, we reject Dr. Safier’s position that, as "malpractice" defendants, the Ambrosio firm bore the burden of establishing the reasonable nature of the Walder defendants’ bill. This position would be correct if the dispute were directly with the Walder defendants. Cohen, supra, 146 N.J. at 156. However, this was not such a dispute, but rather, a malpractice action against attorneys whose services did not encompass the work that was the subject of the disputed bill. Dr. Safier has offered no precedent that would suggest the customary burdens of proof applicable to a legal malpractice action would be reversed in this double-tiered malpractice suit, simply because excessive billing was claimed in the underlying matter. "