In the 1996 decision in Baxt v. Liloia, the N.J. Supreme Court held that, while a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct might be evidence of professional negligence, the RPCs did not per se create a private cause of action in favor of a lay plaintiff. Its decision last week in Nostrame v. Santiago appears to have created an exception to that rule for suits between attorneys.
The case is a suit for tortious interference with contract arising out of a medical malpractice plaintiff’s change of counsel. Frank Nostrame, the original attorney, investigated the complaint and filed the malpractice complaint. At that point, his tortious interference complaint alleges, his client, instigated by her daughter, engaged another firm and directed him to turn over the file. After the malpractice case settled for $1.2 million, Nostrame brought suit against his former client, her daughter and the second firm, alleging tortious interference with contract. As damages he claimed not merely quantum meruitfor his time spent but the full value of the contingent fee. Reversing the trial court, the Appellate Division dismissed the tortious interference complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In doing so, however, it opened the door to such suits in the future.
