Maxwell L. Billek

Maxwell Billek (Partner – Madison, NJ) and Melissa Terranova (Associate – Madison, NJ) secured a complete victory in a highly complex legal malpractice action pending in the New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a bankruptcy law firm.

The matter involved extensive and significant motion practice in a procedurally intricate case arising out of a prior bankruptcy proceeding. In moving for summary judgment, Max and Melissa advanced multiple independent procedural grounds for dismissal.

First, they established that the individual plaintiff lacked standing to assert legal malpractice claims because he was not the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy matter and therefore suffered no legally cognizable injury. Second, they demonstrated that the corporate plaintiff likewise lacked standing, as any potential claims belonged exclusively to the bankruptcy estate and could only be pursued by the trustee. Finally, they successfully argued that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claims arose directly from the administration of the bankruptcy estate and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

The court agreed on all grounds - including substantive grounds involving the lack of an attorney-client relationship. It granted summary judgment in favor of Wilson Elser’s client, dismissed all claims with prejudice on both procedural and substantive bases, and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety.

This result reflects a decisive and comprehensive defense victory in a sophisticated legal malpractice matter involving standing, bankruptcy-estate ownership of claims, and jurisdictional principles.

The Madison, New Jersey team comprised of Kathleen Williams (Of Counsel), partner Maxwell Billek and associate Gina Brignola obtained summary judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, in a legal malpractice action brought against our client, a personal injury law firm. In an underlying matter, the firm represented the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit against a contractor. The plaintiff, a police officer, was struck by a construction vehicle owned by the contractor while directing traffic at a construction site, causing severe injuries inhibiting his ability to ever return to work.

The court dismissed the underlying matter after the contractor's counsel filed a motion for summary judgment, ruling that the law firm failed to file timely and appropriate opposition to the motion. The plaintiff's legal malpractice lawsuit against our client ensued. After discovery and a month before the trial was to begin, the Madison team obtained summary judgment after successfully arguing that the plaintiff was a special employee of the contractor and, as such, was only entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Accordingly, regardless of the law firm's conduct in the underlying matter, the plaintiff could not succeed in the 3rd party suit against the contractor. In a 23-page opinion, the Court agreed and granted Wilson Elser's motion for summary judgment, staving off a last demand of $2 million.
 

Anne Dalena (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) and Maxwell Billek (Partner-Madison, NJ) represented a prominent New Jersey employment law firm that defended the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case against a shipping and supply chain management company. Plaintiff alleged that his former lawyer failed him in several respects, including failing to be fully familiar with the record and failing to file a proper opposition to the summary judgement motion filed by his employer. After the deposition of the plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, Anne and Max moved for summary judgment on the basis that the expert could not state within a reasonable degree of certainty how the result would have been any different if the attorney had been more familiar with the record or had written a better opposition to the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the trial judge barred the expert from testifying under the "net opinion" rule, and granted summary judgment for our client lawyer. The Appellate Division affirmed.