Legal Malpractice

Legal Malpractice, Bankruptcy, Calendar Practice in this NJ Legal Malpractice Case

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

Here is a primer in how litigation can go sour, starting with one problem, leading to one after another.  This  NJ case discusses affidavits of merit in NJ legal malpractice cases, pro-se litigants and potential dispensations to them, and the statute of limitations in bankruptcy cases. SHIRLEY A. GOODHEART, v. STEVEN P. KARTZMAN, ESQ.; WACKS, MULLEN & KARTZMAN; GLEN SAVITS, ESQ.; LUCAS, SAVITS AND MAROSE, LLC; and GREEN AND SAVITS, LLC,

"Plaintiff now argues that (1) the statute of limitations did not bar the amended complaint because the discovery rule should apply and no malpractice claim accrued until the bankruptcy plan was confirmed on June 17, 2002; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to enter an order memorializing the trial judge's instruction that plaintiff file an amended complaint within thirty days, thereby prejudicing a pro se plaintiff.

With respect to the statute of limitations, it is unclear in the complaint whether the allegations arise from confirmation of the bankruptcy plan in 2002 or the reopening of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in 1999. We are, therefore, constrained to remand for a hearing pursuant to Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (1973), to determine when the cause of action actually accrued.

With respect to plaintiff's second point, she is entitled to no special consideration as a pro se plaintiff. She must be aware of the law and compliant with the Rules of Court as does any other litigant. Tuckey v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 236 N.J. Super. 221, 224 (App. Div. 1989). The judge instructed her to file the amended complaint within thirty days of the July 14, 2006 case management conference. She did not file her motion to restore and amend the complaint until August 27, 2006; however, we expressly decline to reverse the February 16, 2007 order at this juncture. Rather, the matter is remanded for a Lopez hearing to determine whether plaintiff filed the complaint within the statute of limitations. If the court finds that she did, plaintiff may move to restore the complaint and proceed with the litigation. If, on the other hand, the trial court finds that the cause of action accrued in 1999, rather than 2002, the complaint shall remain dismissed.

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on December 31, 1969 (boomark / email).