Lerner v. Laufer
359 N.J. Super. 201, 819 A.2d 471 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney does not breach the standard of care if, with the client's informed consent after consultation as permitted by RPC 1.2(c), the attorney limits the scope of representation in a matrimonial matter to reviewing a mediated settlement agreement without conducting independent discovery or opining on its fairness.
Facts:
- After 24 years of marriage, Lynne C. Lerner and her husband Michael H. Lerner decided to divorce and engaged a family friend, New York attorney Brett Meyer, to mediate a property settlement agreement (PSA).
- Meyer gave Lynne a list of New Jersey attorneys to consult before signing the PSA, from which she selected William F. Laufer.
- At their first in-person meeting, Laufer presented Lynne with a detailed letter stating he had not conducted any discovery, could not verify asset values, and was not in a position to advise her on the fairness of the PSA.
- The letter confirmed that Lynne was satisfied with the mediated agreement and was accepting Laufer's services on this limited basis. Lynne read and signed this letter.
- Immediately after signing the letter, Lynne and Laufer reviewed the PSA, and it was executed in a four-way conference with Michael and his attorney.
- Five days later, Laufer's office sent Lynne a standard form retainer agreement, which she also signed, that described a much broader scope of services including factual investigation of assets and income.
- Shortly after the divorce was finalized, Lynne learned that her husband's company was proceeding with an Initial Public Offering (IPO), which she believed was contrary to representations made during mediation.
Procedural Posture:
- Lynne Lerner moved to set aside the initial Judgment of Divorce, alleging it was fraudulent.
- The trial court judge (Judge Glickman) vacated the judgment of divorce but took no position on the validity of the underlying PSA.
- Lerner engaged in a second round of mediation, which resulted in a second amended PSA and a new judgment of divorce in 1999.
- In September 1999, Lerner filed a legal malpractice action against Laufer and his firm in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (trial court).
- After discovery, Laufer moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Laufer, dismissing Lerner's complaint.
- Lerner, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment dismissal to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, with Laufer as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney commit malpractice by limiting the scope of representation to reviewing a mediated property settlement agreement without conducting independent discovery or offering an opinion on its fairness, when the client provides informed consent to such a limitation?
Opinions:
Majority - Wells, J.A.D.
No. An attorney does not commit malpractice by limiting the scope of representation when the client provides informed consent. The court found that if the service is limited by consent, then the degree of care is framed by the agreed-upon service. The court reasoned that RPC 1.2(c) explicitly allows an attorney to limit the scope of representation if the client consents after consultation. In this case, Laufer's letter of February 2, 1994, which Lerner read and signed, served as a precisely drafted consent that was 'unmistakable in its import' that Laufer would not perform discovery, could not opine on the PSA's fairness, and would not advise her whether to execute it. The court also held that public policy favors voluntary settlements, including those reached through mediation, and attorneys must be able to provide limited-scope representation to facilitate this process. Finally, the court found no proximate cause for damages, as Lerner successfully vacated the original divorce judgment and had a 'second chance' to litigate or renegotiate all issues, which she ultimately did.
Analysis:
This decision validates the practice of 'unbundled' or limited-scope legal services in matrimonial law, providing a safe harbor for attorneys who are retained solely to review mediated agreements. It establishes that a clear, written consent from the client limiting the scope of representation under RPC 1.2(c) can serve as a potent defense against malpractice claims alleging failure to perform tasks explicitly excluded from the agreement, such as discovery and asset valuation. The ruling reconciles the attorney's traditional duty of comprehensive representation with the modern trend toward alternative dispute resolution, where clients take a more active role in crafting their own settlements. This precedent encourages attorneys to use carefully drafted letters of engagement to manage client expectations and define the boundaries of their professional responsibility.
Unlock the full brief for Lerner v. Laufer