Nostrame v. Santiago
213 N.J. 109
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Nostrame, as attorney, sues Mazie Slater for tortious interference with his contract with client Santiago.
- Santiago discharged Nostrame and retained Mazie Slater; Nostrame claims wrongful inducement by Slater.
- Trial court valued Nostrame’s lien for services; held contingent fee to client; some fees held in escrow.
- Appellate Division dismissed Nostrame’s tort claim with prejudice, barring discovery.
- This Court granted certification and accepted amicus brief from NJSBA; issues refined for review.
- Court affirms as modified, holding no improper means proven and requiring specificity in pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a discharged attorney sue a successor for tortious interference? | Nostrame seeks discovery to prove wrongful means. | No claim without wrongful means; injuries not pleaded. | No; claim requires specific wrongful means and dismissed. |
| Is discovery warranted to plead improper means under RPC constraints? | Discovery needed to allege wrongful means. | Ethical rules limit conduct; discovery inappropriate. | Discovery denied; pleadings insufficient. |
| Must complaint show actionable wrongful means; can RPCs constitute wrongful means? | RPC violations by Slater could be wrongful means. | RPCs restrictions do not create tort unless pleaded. | RPCs may define wrongful means; not shown here. |
| Should the action be amended or allowed to proceed after discovery? | Amend to cure deficiencies. | No amendment due to lack of facts. | Dismissal with prejudice; no amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (N.J. 1989) (careful approach to Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissals; may be without prejudice)
- Glick v. Barclays De Zoete Wedd, Inc., 300 N.J. Super. 299 (App.Div.1997) (contract terminable at will; quantum meruit framework)
- Cohen v. Radio-Electronics Officers Union, 146 N.J. 140 (1996) (client freedom; termination at will; precludes automatic recovery)
- Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, 128 N.J. 10 (1992) (client’s right to choose counsel; do nothing to restrain confidence)
- Dwyer v. Jung, 133 N.J. Super. 343 (Ch. Div. 1975) (client’s right to discharge counsel; at-will contract)
- E Z Sockets, Inc. v. Brighton-Best Socket Screw Mfg. Inc., 307 N.J. Super. 546 (Ch.Div.1996) ( wrongful means includes broader professional contexts)
- Shebar v. Sanyo Bus. Sys. Corp., 218 N.J. Super. 111 (App.Div.1987) ( deceitful acts may be wrongful means)