Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Lerner v. Laufer | 819 A.2d 471 (2003)

Under Model Rule of Professional Conduct One point Two C and state law equivalents, an attorney may limit the scope of client representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent. In Lerner versus Laufer, a New Jersey appeals court considered whether an attorney could reasonably limit his scope of representation in a divorce case to review of a proposed property settlement agreement, or P S A.

Michael Lerner and Lynne Lerner were a married couple with a large fortune. However, in nineteen ninety-four, Michael filed for divorce.

After filing for divorce, Michael contacted his business lawyer and family friend, Brett Meyer, to mediate a P S A. Following several sessions, Meyer drafted a proposed agreement under which Lynne was to receive money and stock acquired during the marriage. In addition, Lynne was to receive alimony and child support in exchange for waiving her rights to the remaining stock.

Meyer gave Lynne a list of attorneys to consult with before signing the proposed agreement. Lynne then contacted attorney William Laufer, an experienced divorce attorney.

Laufer provided Lynne with a two-page letter detailing that Laufer didn’t perform any financial review and couldn’t advise whether the terms were fair or comparable to a potential trial recovery. Instead, the letter stated that his representation was limited solely to reviewing the agreement itself and stated that Lynne accepted those limits and agreed not to sue Laufer. Lynne then read and signed the letter and, after meeting with Laufer, executed the agreement.

Five days later, Laufer gave Lynne a standard retainer agreement, which she signed, stating that services provided would include financial due diligence and advice as to potential trial recovery.

A few months later, Laufer represented Lynne in the uncontested divorce proceeding. Prior to the hearing, Laufer suggested some amendments to the agreement that were adopted. Following the hearing, the divorce was granted, and the agreement was incorporated into the final judgment.

Subsequently, Lynne sued Laufer in state superior court for malpractice, arguing that he failed to perform duties typically expected of a divorce attorney and that the letter neither limited nor waived her rights to full representation. She also argued that, by suggesting amendments to the agreement, Laufer exceeded the limitation. In response, Laufer moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. Lynne appealed to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть