## Facts

- Karen Garcia was injured in a multi-vehicle collision on Route 130 in East Windsor, New Jersey.
- Garcia retained Kozlov, Seaton, Romanini & Brooks, P.C.; associate Elizabeth L. Sylvester filed a negligence complaint against certain drivers but did not timely name Carol Ertel.
- After a conflict was discovered, the firm referred the matter to new counsel; the complaint was amended to add Ertel, but Ertel was dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds.
- Garcia settled the underlying personal injury claims against the remaining defendants for $87,000.
- Garcia sued the firm and Sylvester for legal malpractice, alleging the failure to timely sue Ertel forced an undervalued settlement.

## Issues

1. In a legal malpractice action alleging a diminished settlement due to counsel’s negligence, must the plaintiff prove causation and damages exclusively through a traditional “suit within a suit,” or may the case be tried using expert testimony and/or a modified suit-within-a-suit approach?

## Decision

- The trial court directed a verdict for Garcia on professional negligence and found her $87,000 underlying settlement reasonable; the jury then found proximate cause and valued the underlying claim at $225,000.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding the trial court should have required a traditional suit-within-a-suit and should not have allowed expert testimony to function as a substitute.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the jury verdict.
- The Court held that a legal malpractice case need not be tried solely as a traditional suit-within-a-suit; courts may permit (1) a full suit-within-a-suit, (2) any reasonable modification, or (3) a case based on expert testimony, depending on the case and, where more than one method is proper, the plaintiff’s choice.

## Legal Principles

- A legal malpractice plaintiff is not categorically required to prove the “case within the case” only by fully retrying the underlying action.
- Trial courts may select among a traditional suit-within-a-suit, reasonable modifications of that format, and expert-testimony-based proof, considering the facts, legal theories, and practical impediments to particular trial modes.
- There is no presumption favoring the traditional suit-within-a-suit model over other permissible methods.
- In settlement-based malpractice claims, expert testimony may be an appropriate means to establish what would likely have been recovered or reasonably achieved absent the attorney’s negligence.

## Conclusion

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that legal malpractice cases, including those alleging a forced or undervalued settlement, may be tried through a traditional suit-within-a-suit, reasonable modifications of that approach, or expert testimony, and it reinstated the plaintiff’s verdict where the trial court permitted a hybrid presentation consistent with those options.


Garcia v. Kozlov, Seaton, Romanini & Brooks, P.C., 179 N.J. 343, 845 A.2d 602 (N.J. 2004)