## Facts

- Lynne C. Lerner and her husband divorced after a 24-year marriage involving substantial assets, including corporate stock and multiple real properties.
- A mediator prepared a detailed property settlement agreement (PSA); Lynne was advised to consult New Jersey matrimonial counsel before signing.
- Lynne consulted William F. Laufer, Esq. to review the draft PSA.
- On February 2, 1994, Laufer presented and Lynne signed a written engagement letter that expressly limited his representation to reviewing the mediated PSA.
- The letter stated Laufer had not conducted discovery, had not reviewed tax returns or financial documentation, and lacked information about the values of key assets.
- The letter further stated that, without discovery, Laufer could not advise whether the PSA was fair and equitable or whether Lynne should execute it.
- Lynne signed the PSA after Laufer suggested certain amendments; the PSA was incorporated into the divorce judgment.
- Years later, Lynne sought to set aside the judgment based on alleged fraud and misrepresentation of asset values, leading to a second mediation and a new PSA.
- Lynne then sued Laufer and his firm for legal malpractice, claiming he negligently failed to conduct customary investigation and valuation and that the limitation on scope was ineffective.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Lynne appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney may limit the scope of representation to reviewing a mediated matrimonial PSA under RPC 1.2(c) with the client’s informed consent.
2. Whether the written limited-scope engagement effectively restricted the attorney’s duties so that failure to conduct discovery or value assets was not a breach of the standard of care.
3. Whether the plaintiff’s expert proofs and causation evidence were sufficient to defeat summary judgment in a malpractice action arising from limited-scope representation.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment dismissing the malpractice complaint.
- The court held that RPC 1.2(c) permits limited-scope representation if the client consents after consultation, including in the context of reviewing a mediated PSA.
- The court found the engagement letter clearly disclosed the lack of discovery and the attorney’s inability to provide a fairness recommendation, and that the client knowingly accepted the risks of proceeding.
- The court concluded the plaintiff failed to show a breach measured against the proper, limited-scope standard of care and failed to establish proximate causation of damages attributable to the attorney’s limited role.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may limit the objectives and scope of representation under RPC 1.2(c) when the client is competent and gives informed consent after consultation.
- Informed consent to limited-scope settlement review may be established through a clear written agreement explaining: (1) what the lawyer will and will not do, (2) that discovery and verification have not been performed, and (3) that the lawyer cannot assess fairness without the missing information.
- Strong public policy favoring voluntary settlement and party autonomy permits competent parties to resolve disputes without full discovery, so long as the agreement is voluntary and not unlawful or contrary to public policy.
- A malpractice claim must be supported by expert proof tied to the correct standard of care for the engagement undertaken; applying a full-service matrimonial standard to a properly limited engagement is insufficient.
- Proximate causation must connect the alleged negligence to the claimed loss; later opportunities to contest or renegotiate the settlement may affect the causation showing.
- Special circumstances (e.g., incapacity, coercion, illegality, or other conditions undermining voluntariness or enforceability) may limit the enforceability of scope restrictions, but were not shown on these facts.

## Conclusion

The court upheld dismissal of the malpractice action because the attorney’s representation was validly limited by a clear written agreement and informed client consent, and the plaintiff did not prove breach or causation under the limited-scope standard applicable to review of a mediated divorce settlement.


Lerner v. Laufer, 359 N.J. Super. 201, 819 A.2d 471 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003)