MARGARET BELL VS. RICHARD C. KLEIN(L-3121-12, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3523-14T3

Background

Margaret Bell retained attorney Richard Klein in 2005 for her divorce; Klein later joined Spector, Gadon & Rosen (SGR).
The parties entered a negotiated settlement placed on the record and incorporated into a Dual Final Judgment of Divorce (Feb. 26, 2007); Bell testified on the record that she entered the agreement voluntarily and understood it.
The Final Judgment set permanent alimony, allocated various tax and property responsibilities, referenced earlier indemnification agreements (not in the record), and addressed division of equity from two properties (NJ marital home and a Florida property).
Bell sued Klein, his firm, and SGR for legal malpractice in 2007 alleging coercion, failure to enforce indemnification and pendente lite support, poor discovery, and promises to pay mortgage/taxes; she voluntarily dismissed that complaint in 2010 and accepted an Offer of Judgment on the fee claim.
Bell re-filed a malpractice action in 2012 asserting many of the same theories and additional post-judgment implementation problems; defendants moved for summary judgment based on the entire controversy doctrine, judicial estoppel, statute of limitations, and that plaintiff’s expert offered inadmissible net opinions.
The trial court dismissed some pre-2007 claims under the entire controversy doctrine and ultimately granted summary judgment dismissing the 2012 malpractice complaint on judicial estoppel and because the expert report was a net opinion; the Appellate Division affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bell is judicially estopped from challenging the settlement as coerced	Bell contends she was coerced and therefore can sue for malpractice	Defendants say Bell told the court she entered voluntarily and is estopped from contradicting that	Court: Judicial estoppel bars coercion/duress-based malpractice claims (plaintiff estopped)
Whether Bell is estopped from challenging alimony calculation and lack of discovery into husband’s income	Bell says Klein failed to investigate income and undersecured alimony	Defendants say Bell knew income was uncertain, was offered forensic accountants, and accepted settlement knowingly	Court: Judicial estoppel bars claims about income/alimony discovery (plaintiff estopped)
Whether malpractice claims based on drafting errors and implementation of the settlement are barred	Bell says drafting defects and post-judgment implementation issues give rise to malpractice separate from the settlement	Defendants argue prior settlement precludes relitigation of those issues	Court: Claims based on drafting errors and post-judgment conduct are not estopped and survive summary judgment
Whether plaintiff’s expert report is an inadmissible net opinion	Bell contends the expert’s report identified deviations with factual support and quantified damages	Defendants argue the report gives bare conclusions without factual foundation	Court: Expert provided factual bases and legal standards; report is not a forbidden net opinion (trial court erred finding otherwise)

Key Cases Cited

Guido v. Duane Morris, L.L.P., 202 N.J. 79 (New Jersey Supreme Court) (prior settlement does not automatically bar malpractice claim; narrow equity exception applies)
Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428 (New Jersey Supreme Court) (application of equity-based exception where second settlement placed plaintiff in position she claimed should have obtained initially)
Ziegelheim v. Apollo, 128 N.J. 250 (New Jersey Supreme Court) (attorney duty and standards in malpractice claims)
Newell v. Hudson, 376 N.J. Super. 29 (App. Div.) (judicial estoppel bars malpractice claims that directly contradict a prior on-the-record voluntary settlement statement)
Rosenberg v. Tavorath, 352 N.J. Super. 385 (App. Div.) (expert opinion admissibility: must be based on facts/data under N.J.R.E. 703; net-opinion rule explained)