Lerner v. Laufer

359 N.J. Super. 201, 819 A.2d 471 (2003)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lerner v. Laufer

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
359 N.J. Super. 201, 819 A.2d 471 (2003)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Play video

Facts

When Michael H. Lerner divorced Lynne C. Lerner (plaintiff), he contacted his business lawyer and family friend to mediate a property-settlement agreement (the agreement) to divide the couple’s considerable fortune. Several sessions resulted in a draft agreement proposing that Lynne accept $500,000 and 15 percent of stock acquired during marriage (worth over $3 million), alimony, and child support, in exchange for waiving rights to the remaining 85 percent of stock. The mediator gave Lynne a list of attorneys (forwarded from Michael’s divorce attorney) to consult before signing the agreement. Lynne called William Laufer (defendant), an experienced divorce attorney, who had already received the draft. Five days later, Laufer met with Lynne and provided a letter detailing that Laufer had not performed any financial review and could not advise whether the terms were fair or comparable to a potential trial recovery. Instead, the letter explicitly limited representation solely to reviewing the agreement itself and stated that Lynne accepted those limits and agreed not to sue Laufer. Lynne read and signed the letter, reviewed the agreement with Laufer, discussed the value of the couple’s stock, and executed the agreement. Lynne later signed and returned Laufer’s standard retainer agreement stating that services would include financial due diligence and advice as to potential trial recovery. Laufer suggested some amendments before the divorce hearing, when an amended final agreement was incorporated into a divorce judgment. Lynne sued for malpractice five years later, claiming Laufer failed to perform duties typically expected of a divorce attorney and that Laufer’s letter neither limited nor waived Lynne’s right to full representation. Lynne also claimed that by suggesting amendments to the agreement, Laufer exceeded the limitation and was thus fully liable. The trial court dismissed the malpractice action. Lynne appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wells, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership