On March 7, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously decided Gere v. Louis, 209 N.J. 486 (2012), a decision that has significant malpractice implications for matrimonial attorneys. In Gere, the Court narrowed the “equity based exception” created in Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428 (2005), which provides attorneys with an affirmative defense to a malpractice claim following a former client’s decision to settle a dispute over the validity and enforceability of her divorce settlement, where the challenge is based upon the former attorney’s negligence. In Gere, the Court trimmed the application of Puder by allowing a malpractice case to move forward despite the fact that the client settled a post-settlement dispute that arose out of an alleged error by her former attorneys.
Plaintiff Julia Gere sued her former attorneys for malpractice following a postjudgment settlement with her husband, ending a dispute she alleged was created by the negligence of her former attorneys. Rather than allowing the court to ultimately decide the matter by completing a plenary hearing, Gere opted to settle the dispute for less than she would have received under the divorce agreement, proclaiming that there was too much risk for her to continue. In the settlement, Gere specifically carved out the right to pursue prior counsel in light of Puder. Nevertheless, the trial court dismissed the malpractice claim, relying on Puder.
