ANTHONY ANGELO VS. JOEL I. BERGMAN (L-3937-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2392-15T2

Angelo sued his pain-management doctor; during trial his attorney Bergman represented him and Dr. Aldrete testified for Angelo; after three days the medical-malpractice case was dismissed with prejudice in exchange for a $200,000 settlement in open court.
Angelo later sued Bergman for legal malpractice alleging Bergman negligently valued the case and failed to explain settlement mechanics.
Angelo retained lawyer Anthony Ambrosio as his malpractice expert; Ambrosio issued a report (valuing the case at $500,000 and criticizing Bergman) and was deposed.
At deposition Ambrosio repeatedly conceded key points in conflict with his report: that a $200,000 settlement could be a considered judgment call (not malpractice), Angelo understood the settlement and signed a release, and the so-called “high-low” was effectively a $200,000 settlement.
The trial court excluded Ambrosio’s report as a net opinion; with no admissible expert proof of breach, the court granted summary judgment for Bergman.
Appellate Division affirmed: Ambrosio’s deposition repudiated his report, making it inadmissible; absence of expert proof requires dismissal of the malpractice claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ambrosio’s expert report admissible or is a net opinion	Ambrosio’s report established breach (improper valuation and failure to explain settlement mechanics)	Ambrosio’s deposition recanted key opinions, making the report speculative and inadmissible	Report was a net opinion and properly excluded
Whether expert testimony was required to prove malpractice here	Expert showed breach of standard of care (valuation and explanation)	Expert repudiation left no admissible proof; malpractice claims require expert proof of breach and causation	Expert testimony was required and absent; summary judgment for defendant appropriate
Whether mischaracterization as a “high-low” agreement created malpractice per se	Angelo contended the “high-low” was fraudulent and concealed the true settlement, supporting malpractice	Bergman argued the characterization didn’t harm Angelo; Angelo understood and accepted $200,000; expert conceded this	Court found no actionable breach from the mislabeling given Angelo’s informed consent; not malpractice
Whether citation to RPCs (ethics rules) alone establishes civil liability	Plaintiff relied on RPCs to show breach of duties to inform and obtain consent	Defendant contended ethics rules do not, by themselves, create a civil cause of action and Ambrosio disavowed breaches after deposition	RPCs may inform duties but do not alone create tort liability; Ambrosio’s concessions defeated any RPC-based claim

Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (N.J. 2015) (net-opinion rule and sequence of reviewing evidentiary rulings before summary judgment)
Estate of Hanges v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369 (N.J. 2010) (standards for appellate review of evidentiary rulings and summary judgment)
McGrogan v. Till, 167 N.J. 414 (N.J. 2001) (elements of legal-malpractice claim)
Garcia v. Kozlov, Seaton, Romanini & Brooks, P.C., 179 N.J. 343 (N.J. 2004) (expert required to prove deviation from attorney standard of care)
Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (N.J. 2011) (definition and exclusion of net opinion)
Ritondo by Ritondo v. Pekala, 275 N.J. Super. 109 (App. Div. 1994) (expert testimony can be nullified by admissions on cross-examination)
Kaplan v. Skoloff & Wolfe, P.C., 339 N.J. Super. 97 (App. Div. 2001) (without expert, jury lacks knowledge to evaluate settlement value)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (standards for granting summary judgment)
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (N.J. 2012) (standard for overturning exclusion of expert evidence)