Jeremy is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he represents and defends attorneys, accountants, insurance producers, corporate directors and officers, and financial institutions, among other clients.
Jeremy handles various cases involving insurance agents and brokers liability. In connection with the same, Jeremy defends clients facing allegations of professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and routinely works with clients in an advisory capacity regarding best practices in consulting with insureds. In connection with handling insurance agents and brokers liability claims, Jeremy frequently publishes materials with the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) through the PLUS Blog and offers various risk management tips through the PLUS podcast series.
Jeremy also represents clients in privacy and data breach matters and handles cases involving intellectual property, copyright and trademark infringement, as well as trade secret, trade dress technology and media-related litigation.
He is an active member of PLUS where he currently serves on the Board of Trustees. He is an alumnus of its Leadership and Mentoring Program (LAMP). Through PLUS, Jeremy achieved his Registered Professional Liability Underwriting (RPLU) Certification. He also serves on the PLUS Mid Atlantic Chapter Committee.
Jeremy graduated magna cum laude from Drexel University's LeBow College of Business. He earned his juris doctor from Rutgers University School of Law, graduating cum laude and in the top 15 percent of his class.
He is an active member of the New Jersey State, Camden County, and Burlington County Bar Associations. He is a frequent guest speaker at his alma mater, Rutgers University School of Law and at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, on topics including professionalism and career development. He is also active in the Knights of Columbus organization in his community.
Jeremy is admitted to the bars of the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania and is admitted to practice in federal court in both the District of New Jersey and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Results
Dismissal Affirmed Obtained in a Lawyers’ Professional Liability Case
We secured an Appellate Division decision affirming the trial court’s order dismissing a fraud and fraudulent concealment case filed against various attorneys and broker dealers. In its decision, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s orders and opinions dismissing the case based on entire controversy, collateral estoppel and litigation privilege grounds. In this comprehensive decision, the Appellate Division held that the plaintiff’s claims were mirrored claims that had been fully litigated in a prior proceeding, where our clients either represented the litigants in the first case or were directly involved in the first case as defendants.
Verdict Affirmed in Complex Legal Malpractice Case
We won a decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, which affirmed an order for summary judgment in a complex multi-party legal malpractice action. This case involved financial ventures that led to two legal malpractice actions. The dismissal was affirmed, with the Appellate Division agreeing with the trial judge that the plaintiff’s expert reports were net opinions and inadmissible.
Thought Leadership
New Jersey Appellate Division Clarifies Limits of Transactional Attorneys’ Duties and Proof of Damages in Legal Malpractice Claims
April 21, 2026
On April 15, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an important decision in Gonzalez v. DiBello, et al., A‑2334‑24 (App. Div. Apr. 15, 2026), affirming summary judgment in favor of a transactional attorney accused of legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Marshall Dennehey’s Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias successfully represented the attorney‑defendant. The decision provides significant guidance to both the malpractice defense bar and transactional practitioners, particularly regarding the scope of an attorney’s duty of care, the role of expert testimony, and the proof required to establish causation and damages. The malpractice action stemmed from an underlying federal lawsuit arising out of a failed transaction to purchase a Kia dealership. An investor alleged that the purchasers and their counsel engaged in a fraudulent scheme, asserting claims including fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy. Although the federal complaint named the transactional attorney, the claims against her were dismissed, and she was never found liable. The attorney neither represented the investor nor provided him with legal advice and was unaware that he was the ultimate source of investment funds. Her role was limited to preparing transaction documents required by the manufacturer to reflect a transfer of ownership interests. Following dismissal of the federal action, purchaser Christopher Gonzalez filed a legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty action against the attorney. Gonzalez relied on expert reports asserting that the attorney had a duty to investigate the source of funds, determine whether her client was financially capable of consummating the transaction, and uncover any disqualifying relationships among investors. The trial court rejected those opinions, holding that New Jersey law does not impose upon transactional attorneys a duty to investigate the origins of funds passing through a trust account or to assess a client’s financial capacity absent specific circumstances. The Appellate Division affirmed, reiterating that an attorney’s duty in a transaction is “to exercise that degree of reasonable knowledge and skill that lawyers of ordinary ability and skill possess and exercise,” and that alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct do not, standing alone, create a cause of action. The Appellate Division also affirmed dismissal based on the plaintiff’s failure to establish damages and causation through competent expert testimony. Gonzalez sought, among other things, to recover all legal fees incurred defending the federal action and alleged loss of investment. However, his expert offered what the courts deemed a classic “net opinion,” failing to analyze the reasonableness of the fees, allocate which fees were allegedly caused by the claimed malpractice, or quantify any lost benefit of the bargain. The court emphasized that when damages are an essential element of a legal malpractice claim, expert testimony must do more than assert conclusions—it must explain how and why specific damages were proximately caused by the attorney’s conduct. Absent such an analysis, allowing a jury to award all defense fees would impermissibly convert compensatory damages into speculative or liquidated damages. Finally, the Appellate Division rejected Gonzalez’s attempt to salvage his claims through a “suit‑within‑a‑suit” theory or a parallel breach of fiduciary duty claim. Citing Morris Properties, Inc. v. Wheeler, the court reaffirmed that plaintiffs cannot avoid their prima facie proof requirements by invoking trial methodologies, and that expert testimony remains necessary in esoteric malpractice cases. The court further held that Gonzalez could not show he would have recovered in the underlying federal action, particularly where he and the attorney were dismissed from that case. The fiduciary duty claim was properly dismissed as duplicative of the malpractice claim and failed for the same lack of proof on causation and damages. This decision is a significant reaffirmation of rigorous proof standards in transactional malpractice cases and provides meaningful protection against expansive and speculative damages theories.
Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability
New Jersey Defines When Attorneys Owe Duties to Non-Client
March 1, 2026
Christakos v. Boyadjis, 262 N.J. 447 (2026) When does an attorney owe a non-client a duty of care? And when can that non-client bring forth an action for legal malpractice? Christakos v. Boyadjis, 262 N.J. 447 (2026), undertakes these questions and considers the appropriate standard. In the present matter, the plaintiffs brought suit against the attorney that prepared the wills of their two family members, alleging legal malpractice. The two plaintiffs were the sister-in-law and niece to the decedents. The decedents were brothers and, in 2003, they executed mirror image wills, along with completing powers of attorney (POA) documents in 2001. As a result of these documents, the plaintiffs stood to inherit part of the estate, and one plaintiff was attorney-in-fact under the POA. However, the plaintiffs had no knowledge of this or the testamentary documents. In 2017, the brothers sought to make changes to their wills, expressing a strong desire to disinherit their nephew and nieces, wanting to leave their estate to their church and local community members that were supporting them in their advanced age. In 2018, their health began to decline, and the attorney made the final changes to their wills. The will for the first brother was completed in January 2018, leaving everything to the surviving brother, and the alternative residuary was to be split equally between two neighbors, their church, and then their sister-in-law, which is one of the plaintiffs. The other brother was not competent to execute the will and continued to have cognitive decline. This brother executed his will on April 7, 2018, after a home health aide determined that he was in a lucid state and had testamentary capacity. A few days letter, that brother was confirmed to be incompetent and needed a legal guardian appointed. Both brothers died in 2018, and the niece filed two caveats, challenging both wills among other probate actions. In 2020, the plaintiffs sued the attorney for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims, arguing that the attorney owed them a duty of care because they were beneficiaries to the brothers' estate. After years of motion practice and appeals, the Supreme Court of New Jersey expressly adopted the provisions of Section 51 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers to determine when a lawyer owes a duty of care to a non-client. In doing so, the court determined that the standard hinges upon reliance and clear, convincing evidence of intention.
