Joyce A. Popwell v Law Offices of Broome and Horn, 363 N.J. Super. 404 (App. Div. 2002)
NJ Underlying Personal Injury action
Student Contributor: Candice Deaner
Facts: After the court appointed arbitrator found that plaintiff had no cause of action for negligence against the underlying defendant plaintiff’s attorney failed to file for a trial de novo within the time limits set out by R. 4:21A-6(b)(1), A trial de novo filing would have preserved plaintiff’s claim for trial and would not have subjected it to dismissal. Defendants made a cross motion to dismiss, alleging that Plaintiff’s failure to submit an affidavit of merit in the legal malpractice action, as required by statute, required the grant of summary judgment dismissing the malpractice complaint.
Issue: Does the Plaintiff’s failure to submit an expert’s affidavit of merit to support its allegation of legal malpractice when it was common knowledge that failure to file a timely application for a trial de novo amounts to negligence per se for which no expert affidavit or testimony would be necessary.
Ruling: The requirement of the filing of an affidavit of merit is not applicable in this matter because Plaintiff’s allegations do not require the testimony of an expert in order to permit the jury to determine the issue of negligence. Affidavits of merit are not required where, as here, it was “common knowledge” that the defendant attorney was negligent in blowing a time limit the consequences of which included the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s causes of action.
Lesson: In clear cases of attorney negligence, where it is common knowledge that the attorney was negligent by violating a statutory time limit that caused plaintiff to forefeit her claim, no expert’s affidavit is required, because the jury can determine whether the Defendants is negligent based on "common knowledge" and without the need for expert testimony.