Max Billek (Partner-New Jersey) and Michael Chipko (Partner-New Jersey) obtained summary judgment in the Sussex County Superior Court in a legal malpractice action arising from trust disputes between the plaintiff and his co-trustees. Before that chancery action was filed, the co-trustees consulted with the attorneys who had drafted the various trusts and estate planning vehicles regarding their allegations of wrongdoing against the plaintiff. When pre-suit negotiations failed, the attorneys referred the matter to litigation counsel and a formal suit was filed. The plaintiff never amended his Rule 4:5-1 Certification to identify potential malpractice claims and never sought to join the trust and estate attorneys. Following almost two years of litigation, the chancery action was settled but the settlement agreement provided that plaintiff would have the right to pursue a malpractice claim against the trust and estate attorneys. In granting the summary judgement motion, the Sussex County Superior Court ruled that the plaintiff engaged in a purposeful strategy of splitting his claims. The Court further rejected plaintiff’s arguments that legal malpractice claims were exempt from the entire controversy doctrine and distinguished this matter from New Jersey’s seminal legal malpractice case involving entire controversy considerations. The Court further found that this matter did not involve a representation by the attorneys in the underlying litigation and therefore did not implicate attorney-client privilege and loyalty concerns. The Court dismissed all claims pursuant to the entire controversy doctrine and on proximate cause grounds.