## Facts

- A client retained Frank J. Nostrame, Esq., under a contingent-fee agreement to pursue a medical-malpractice claim arising from a serious eye injury during cataract surgery.
- Nostrame investigated, consulted experts, gathered records, and filed a complaint on May 23, 2007.
- About a week later, the client failed to attend a scheduled meeting and informed Nostrame she had retained a new firm, Mazie, Slater, Katz & Freeman, LLC, to take over the case.
- Successor counsel ultimately settled the malpractice case for $1,200,000, generating approximately $360,000 in attorneys’ fees.
- In the fee-allocation process, Nostrame received reimbursement of expenses and a quantum meruit fee for pre-discharge work, not a portion of the contingent fee.
- Nostrame sued the client and successor counsel, alleging the firm wrongfully induced the client to discharge him, tortiously interfering with his contingent-fee contract and prospective economic advantage.

## Issues

1. Whether a discharged attorney may assert tortious interference claims against successor counsel for taking over a client’s representation, and under what circumstances.
2. Whether such a claim requires pleading specific facts showing “improper or wrongful means,” including conduct that violates attorney ethics rules governing solicitation and advertising.
3. Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper where the complaint alleged inducement in conclusory terms and sought discovery to uncover wrongdoing.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed dismissal with prejudice.
- The Court held a discharged attorney may, in principle, sue successor counsel for tortious interference.
- The Court required that any such complaint plead with specificity and particularity facts showing improper or wrongful means by successor counsel.
- The Court concluded Nostrame’s complaint failed to allege concrete facts of unlawful, fraudulent, coercive, or unethical conduct, and therefore failed to state a claim.
- The Court upheld dismissal with prejudice, rejecting discovery as a means to search for facts to support speculative allegations.

## Legal Principles

- A client has an overriding right to select, discharge, and substitute counsel; attorney-client fee agreements are terminable at will.
- Tortious interference requires proof that the defendant used improper or wrongful means; in the successor-attorney context, the Rules of Professional Conduct further inform what counts as wrongful means.
- Successor counsel may accept representation from a client who chooses to change lawyers; liability requires more than merely taking over the case.
- A discharged attorney’s interference claim against successor counsel must plead specific factual circumstances (not labels or general accusations) identifying the alleged wrongful acts and their connection to the substitution of counsel.
- Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when the complaint lacks a factual basis for wrongful means and the plaintiff seeks discovery to find a claim rather than to support an adequately pleaded one.

## Conclusion

The court protected a client’s freedom to change counsel while permitting interference claims against successor attorneys only when the discharged attorney pleads specific, fact-based allegations of improper or unethical conduct; conclusory claims of inducement, unsupported by particularized facts, warrant dismissal with prejudice.


Nostrame v. Santiago, 213 N.J. 109 (2013)