“The justices said such an expansive remedy would chill a litigant’s ability to pursue a plausibly meritorious claim. They said they preferred to leave it to the attorney-disciplinary system to safeguard against such abuses.”
The “attorney-disciplinary” system exists in NJ in name only – it is the fox guarding the hen house.
As the Law.com doesn’t say whether a R.1:4-8 motion was made for sanctions, it is difficult to tell under what authority the so-called SLAPP suit was brought.
One Comment
“The justices said such an expansive remedy would chill a litigant’s ability to pursue a plausibly meritorious claim. They said they preferred to leave it to the attorney-disciplinary system to safeguard against such abuses.”
The “attorney-disciplinary” system exists in NJ in name only – it is the fox guarding the hen house.
As the Law.com doesn’t say whether a R.1:4-8 motion was made for sanctions, it is difficult to tell under what authority the so-called SLAPP suit was brought.