Attorneys argued the summary judgment motion in a case of first impression, involving the issue of whether a law firm, as opposed to individual attorneys, are entitled the beneficial screening function provided by an Affidavit of Merit.

Attorneys argued the summary judgment motion in a case of first impression, involving the issue of whether a law firm, as opposed to individual attorneys, are entitled the beneficial screening function provided by an Affidavit of Merit. Plaintiff argued that our client law firms, although staffed by individual attorneys who would be protected, do not hold licenses to practice in the State. We were successful in arguing, and the Appellate Division ruled that, "It is an undeniable reality of the modern practice of law that attorneys ordinarily ply their craft within business entities," and that the Legislature did not intend to limit the affidavit of Merit Statute to individual attorneys. This was a significant ruling because it avoids the situation where a plaintiff could evade the statutory requirement by suing not the lawyers, but rather the firm only. It should be noted that this ruling is limited to the necessity of an Affidavit of Merit in the discrete context of legal malpractice. Whether this ruling will apply in other professional contexts is an issue the Appellate Division left for another day.