Mark Speeney v. Rutgers University, 673 F. App'x 149

David Oestreicher and Adriana Greci Green were Rutgers doctoral students who complained about Professor William Powers (plagiarism and sexual assault) and served as witnesses in Rutgers’ detenure proceedings. Rutgers hired Carpenter, Bennett & Morrisey (CBM) to represent the University President in those proceedings.
Plaintiffs met with CBM attorneys before the hearings; they did not sign any retainer with CBM, pay CBM, receive bills, or get explicit advice that CBM represented them. CBM attorneys repeatedly told the students they represented the President and not the students.
Both plaintiffs had independent counsel present during the proceedings (Oestreicher’s father; Green’s attorney Emily Alman), who were introduced as counsel to the panel and acted on the students’ behalf.
After CBM presented charges, Rutgers and Powers settled; the Agreement did not retract accusations, apologize, or compensate plaintiffs. Plaintiffs later sued Rutgers, Powers, and CBM for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claiming CBM led them to believe it represented them and failed to protect their individual interests.
The District Court, after discovery, granted CBM summary judgment finding no express or implied attorney-client relationship and no fiduciary duty because plaintiffs did not reasonably rely on CBM. The Third Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an attorney-client relationship (express or implied) existed between plaintiffs and CBM, supporting legal malpractice	Plaintiffs: CBM led them to believe it represented them; meetings, a document marked “ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE,” and draft settlement provisions show a relationship	CBM: No retainer, no fees or bills, explicit statements that CBM represented the President, plaintiffs had other counsel and were told they didn’t need separate counsel	No. No reasonable jury could find an express or implied attorney-client relationship; summary judgment for CBM affirmed
Whether CBM owed plaintiffs a fiduciary duty based on plaintiffs’ alleged reliance or sharing confidential information	Plaintiffs: CBM invited reliance and received confidential information, so a fiduciary duty arose	CBM: Plaintiffs did not reasonably rely on CBM for individual relief; plaintiffs had and used separate counsel; sharing confidences alone does not create duty absent reasonable reliance	No. CBM did not owe a fiduciary duty because plaintiffs’ reliance was not reasonable or foreseeable; summary judgment for CBM affirmed

DeAngelis v. Rose, 727 A.2d 61 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999) (elements of legal malpractice)
Herbert v. Haytaian, 678 A.2d 1183 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996) (express and implied attorney-client relationships)
Dixon Ticonderoga Co. v. Estate of O’Connor, 248 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2001) (standards for forming attorney-client relationship; Restatement §26)
United States v. Costanzo, 625 F.2d 465 (3d Cir. 1980) (fee/payment not required to form attorney-client relationship)
In re Silverman, 549 A.2d 1225 (N.J. 1988) (consideration of outside counsel in determining whether attorney-client relationship exists)
Froom v. Perel, 872 A.2d 1067 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) (existence of attorney-client relationship essential to malpractice claim)
Petrillo v. Bachenberg, 655 A.2d 1354 (N.J. 1995) (fiduciary duty to non-client arises when lawyer invites and the non-client reasonably relies)
Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 876 A.2d 253 (N.J. 2005) (violation of professional conduct rules alone does not create a private cause of action)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute and reasonable jury standard)