227 A.3d 1190
N.J.2020Background:
- In 2008 S.T., a chemical engineer, was struck in the head exiting her workplace and thereafter claimed traumatic brain injury; she received SSDI and ongoing treatment and expert reports indicating cognitive impairments.
- S.T. sued defendants for negligence; in July 2013 defendants made an offer of judgment for $475,000, which S.T. rejected against her attorney’s advice.
- Counsel, invoking RPC 1.14(b), moved under R. 4:26-2 for appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) to evaluate S.T.’s capacity; the court appointed attorney Frederick Miceli as GAL after in-camera proceedings but did not hold a guardianship (R. 4:86) hearing.
- Miceli investigated, interviewed S.T., recommended he be authorized to decide whether to settle or go to trial, and the trial court—without a Rule 4:86 adjudication—entered an order empowering him to make all disposition decisions.
- The parties agreed to a $625,000 settlement; the court held a “friendly hearing,” approved the settlement over S.T.’s vocal objections, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certification and reversed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was counsel’s move for a GAL consistent with RPC 1.14(b)? | Counsel reasonably invoked RPC 1.14(b) to protect S.T. after observing diminished capacity. | Defendants did not contest counsel’s good faith reliance on RPC 1.14(b). | Court: Counsel acted in good faith under RPC 1.14(b) but should have served the motion on S.T. |
| 2. Was appointment of a GAL under R.4:26-2 appropriate? | GAL appointment was warranted to investigate alleged incapacity. | Appointment was proper to investigate capacity. | Court: Appointment was within discretion but the order should have cited R.4:26-2 and limited GAL to investigatory/reporting duties. |
| 3. Could the court delegate to the GAL authority to decide litigation disposition without a R.4:86 hearing? | S.T.: No — deprives her of right to control suit without statutory hearing and adjudication; needs independent counsel and clear-and-convincing finding. | Defendants: R.4:26-2 allows vesting litigation-related decision-making in GAL without R.4:86; record showed clear-and-convincing evidence of incapacity. | Court: No. A GAL appointed under R.4:26-2(b) is an investigator and recommender only; the court must hold a R.4:86 guardianship hearing and find incapacity by clear and convincing evidence before authorizing a GAL to make legal decisions. |
| 4. Was the settlement properly approved over S.T.’s objections? | S.T.: Court lacked authority to approve settlement for an unadjudicated adult; friendly hearing inapplicable absent adjudication. | Defendants: Court properly approved settlement to prevent financial harm; remand would be futile. | Court: Settlement vacated. Without a prior R.4:86 adjudication of incapacity, the court had no authority to approve the settlement over S.T.’s express refusal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.R., 135 N.J. 155 (N.J. 1994) (recognizing right of self-determination and standards for incapacity determinations)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (individual’s right to make unwise litigation decisions must be respected)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (cause of action is property protected by due process)
- In re S.W., 158 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 1978) (appointment of guardian ad litem cannot replace formal guardianship proceedings to deprive adult of control)
- Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012) (court retains ultimate factfinding duty despite GAL recommendations)
- Ziegelheim v. Apollo, 128 N.J. 250 (N.J. 1992) (lawyer must pursue client’s objectives even when unwise; context for RPC 1.14 exception)
- Cuevas v. Wentworth Group, 226 N.J. 480 (N.J. 2016) (settlement reasonableness can involve a range of acceptable outcomes)