Eduardo Cortez v. Joseph G. Gindhart, Esquire D/B/A Joseph G. Gindhart & Associates and Joseph G. Gindhart & Associates
435 N.J. Super. 589
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- Cortez owned a tax preparation business in Atlantic City and retained Gindhart in 2004 after an IRS investigation.
- Gindhart represented Cortez until 2008 when Cortez was indicted for tax-related offenses.
- Cortez alleges Gindhart introduced him to an accountant Petlev and claimed communications with Petlev would be privileged.
- Cortez requested plea negotiations with the U.S. Attorney; Gindhart allegedly refused, then later stopped representing Cortez.
- In 2008 Cortez pled guilty to conspiracy and attempted tax evasion; in 2009 he received a 36‑month sentence; restitution and other penalties followed.
- In 2012 Cortez filed suit for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty; the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exoneration is required to pursue a legal malpractice claim | Cortez argues exoneration is not a prerequisite. | Gindhart contends exoneration or vacation of plea is needed. | Exoneration not required for viability of malpractice claim. |
| Whether Cortez proved damages causally linked to alleged negligence | Cortez claims a more favorable plea would have reduced sentence. | No evidence a more favorable offer existed or would have altered sentence. | No genuine issue of material fact; damages not proven. |
| Whether breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims survive summary judgment | Claims not subsumed by legal malpractice. | No competent evidence of improper billing or fiduciary breach. | Claims properly dismissed for lack of competent evidence. |
| What standard governs a legal malpractice claim in plea negotiations? | Defense counsel negligence in plea process constitutes malpractice. | Standard requires proof of duty, breach, causation, and damages. | Court adopts applicable malpractice standard in plea context; prong analysis required. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKnight v. Office of the Pub. Defender, 197 N.J. 180 (2009) (N.J.) (accrual and exoneration considerations in public defender cases)
- Rogers v. Cape May Cnty. Office of the Pub. Defender, 208 N.J. 414 (2011) (N.J.) (exoneration and accrual issues in post-conviction contexts)
- Sommers v. McKinney, 287 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1996) (N.J.) (elements of legal malpractice claim)
- Albright v. Burns, 206 N.J. Super. 625 (App. Div. 1986) (N.J.) (duty of care standard for attorneys)
- Vastano v. Algeier, 178 N.J. 230 (2003) (N.J.) (duty to inform client during plea negotiations)
- State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339 (2012) (N.J.) (Sixth Amendment considerations in plea representation)
- State v. Norman, 405 N.J. Super. 149 (App. Div. 2009) (N.J.) (plea-related duties of defense counsel)
- Ziegelheim v. Apollo, 128 N.J. 250 (1992) (N.J.) (attorney duty to communicate and act diligently)
- Frye v. United States, Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (U.S.) (duty to communicate plea offers in plea negotiations)
- Lafler v. Cooper, Lafler, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (U.S.) (ineffective assistance in plea negotiations)
- Grunwald v. Bronkesh, 131 N.J. 483 (1993) (N.J.) (damages must be proximately caused by malpractice)
- Alampi v. Russo, 345 N.J. Super. 360 (App. Div. 2001) (N.J.) (exoneration in conviction-based malpractice)
- Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 142 N.J. 618 (1995) (N.J.) (doctrine of issue preclusion not bar tort claims)