Appellate Division Upholds Defense Victory and $500K Fee Award in New Jersey Legal Malpractice Case

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias, of our Mount Laurel, New Jersey, office, secured a significant victory in the New Jersey Appellate Division in Cohen v. Weg & Meyers, P.C., A-2082-22 (App. Div. Aug. 6, 2025), affirming the defense of a legal malpractice action and nearly $500,000 in attorneys’ fees for our client. 

In Cohen, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s jury verdict in favor of Jack’s and Jeremy’s client, a well-known New York boutique law firm. The decision also affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees (approaching $500,000) to their client in connection with legal fees charged for handling the underlying construction defect case. These were fees which the jury found to be fairly and reasonably incurred before our clients were replaced as counsel in the construction defect case.
 
At the trial level, the judge had barred a significant part of the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion regarding the handling of the construction defect case because the expert failed to review and cite the discovery which was taken in the multi-party construction defect case. Rather, the expert simply reviewed the retainer agreement, invoices, and some pleadings and interrogatories in the legal malpractice action, but failed to review the actual file from the construction defect action. The judge, therefore, prohibited the expert from testifying that the bills and invoices were unreasonable or fraudulent, as the plaintiff alleged.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in barring the expert’s opinions, but the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s rulings, holding that New Jersey Rule 703 forbids the admission into evidence of an expert’s conclusions that are not supported by factual evidence or other data. It held that experts are required to give the “why and wherefore” that supports the opinion, rather than a “mere conclusion.” The court held that experts must be able to identify the factual basis for their conclusions, explain their methodology, and demonstrate that both the factual basis and the methodology are reliable.

In addition, the Appellate Division held that when an expert testifies that some action violates professional standards, “there must be some evidential support offered establishing the existence of the standard that is not personal to the expert.” Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the order of the trial court and the jury verdict. 

^{Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – August 12, 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}