Vort v. Hollander

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that even if alleged malpractice was so blatant that it was within the ken of ordinary laypersons, expert testimony was required to establish that malpractice was proximate cause of damage to clients
• refusing to apply the CFA to an attorney where the lawyer was accused of malpractice through overbilling
• noting that state legislature had explicitly added regulation of real estate to the consumer fraud statute, and that “[h]ad the Legislature intended to enter the area of attorney regulation it surely would have stated with specificity that attorneys were covered”
• affirming the grant of summary judgment on a CFA claim because the “learned professional” exception applied
• pointing out that the New Jersey Legislature has not amended the CFA to cover professionals generally despite the historical resistance of New Jersey courts in applying the Act to professionals
• holding the same for attorneys' services

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).