Segal v. Lynch
211 N.J. 230
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Segal and Lynch, a Canadian common-law couple, separated in 2001 with two children; Lynch received substantial support from Ontario court and moved to New Jersey.
- Judge Weisenbeck appointed Linda Schofel as parenting coordinator in 2007 under the Parenting Coordinator Pilot Program; an April 5, 2007 order adopted the pilot guidelines and grievance mechanism.
- Retainer agreement with Newman, McDonough, Sehofel & Giger, P.C. provided for a $5,000 initial retainer and $325/hour for parenting coordination, with each party responsible for half of fees absent further order.
- Segal and Schofel exchanged emails acknowledging possible fees for grievance responses; the matter included a court-ordered grievance response and potential fee disputes under the Guidelines.
- By April 14, 2008, the trial court ordered Segal to pay Schofel $45,433.52, including $33,304.57 for time spent responding to grievances and $12,128.95 for ongoing parenting coordinator services, while some staff work was non-compensable.
- The Appellate Division affirmed most fee awards related to grievances and discovery, and this Court granted certification to review the fee allocations and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parenting coordinator fees for grievance responses are authorized | Segal argues the Guidelines/retainer do not authorize such fees and RPC 1.5 bars them | Schofel contends the retainer and exchange estop Segal from denying payment; guidelines/retainer support a report-to-court function | Yes, in part; fees for grievance responses may be awarded under contract, equitable estoppel, and record evidence, but not solely by Guidelines. |
| Whether Rule 4:23-1(c) supports discovery-related fees for the parenting coordinator | Segal argues Rule 4:23-1 does not authorize such awards to non-parties | Schofel asserts Rule 4:23-1(c) supports fees for discovery-related motions | No; Rule 4:23-1(c) does not authorize broad fee awards for discovery; reverses related awards. |
| Whether deposition time and related costs for Schofel are compensable | Segal challenges payment for deposition-related costs | Retainer covered deposition/testimony costs; Schofel sought fees for deposition and related work | Yes for deposition time under the retainer; not based on expert testimony language. |
| Whether Appellate Division fees to Schofel as a pro se attorney are permissible | Segal argues pro se status bars attorney-fee recovery on appeal | Schofel contends appellate fees arise under Rule 2:11-4 and Rule 5:3-5(e) or contract; pro se status not fatal | Appellate fees allowed under Rule 2:11-4; pro se status does not bar recovery in this context. |
| Whether Segal was entitled to a hearing on grievances | Segal contends a hearing was required under the grievance procedure | Schofel and court argued the grievance process allowed but did not mandate a hearing | No; grievances need not be accompanied by a plenary hearing absent a genuine material dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gyimoty v. Gyimoty, 319 N.J. Super. 544 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999) (guardian ad litem fees; enforcement of fee orders under Rule 1:10-3; pro se attorney fees addressed by court)
- Deutch & Shur, P.C. v. Erickson, 284 N.J. Super. 133 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995) (pro se attorney fees; contract-based fee recovery guidance)
- Alpert v. Quinn, 410 N.J. Super. 510 (App. Div. 2009) (pro se attorney fees under Rule 1:4-8; limitations on attorney-fee recovery for pro se)
- Brach, Eichler, Rosenberg, Silver, Bernstein, Hammer & Gladstone, P.C. v. Ezekwo, 345 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2001) (pro se law-firm fee awards under offer of judgment rules; treated differently in later cases)
- Quinn v. Alpert, 410 N.J. Super. 510 (App. Div. 2009) (pro se counsel fees; discussion of policy implications)
- Pressler & Seigel, Current N.J. Court Rules, R. 4:42-9(a) commentary, (not a case) () (contract-based fee enforcement authority within family matters)
- Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 () (Supreme Court: no attorney’s fees under §1988 for an attorney representing himself)
- Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575 (2008) (inherent court power to sanction vexatious conduct; potential for fee awards)
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (plenary hearings in family disputes require genuine material disputes)