A recent law.com story, “Divorce Judge Wrongly Reduced ‘Shocking’ Legal Fees, Appellate Court Finds” reports that a matrimonial judge in New Jersey was out of line when he capped legal fees at $50,000 for both sides because he was offended at the sums charged, a state appeals court ruled Nov. 30.  Essex County Superior Court Judge Thomas Zampino imposed the limit sua sponte (without being prompted) after remarking $148,606 in legal fees for the plaintiff and $81,394 for the defendant were “shocking” in a “cut and dry” case.

But the Appeallate Division found Zampino had no authority to decide on reasonableness of the fee that a lawyer charged to his own client.  “When a court enters judgment on a matter not properly before it, the judgments are not merely erroneous: they would be absolutely void; because the court in rendering them would transcend the limits of authority in those cases,” the court said in McClutchy v. McClutchy.  The fee issue arose in September 2008 after Zampino completed a three-day trial in the divorce.  Each party moved for an award of counsel fees from the other party under Rule 5:3-5(c), which gives a Family Part judge discretion to award fees to a prevailing party.

Typically, requests for such relief are made in a certification of services, but Zampino limited each side to a one-page statement listing bills incurred, the amount paid and a brief summation.  Zampino ordered Harold to pay $10,000 of Jane's legal fees.  The fee application from the plaintiff's lawyer, Lizanne Ceconi of Ceconi & Cheifetz in Summit, N.J., indicated her client had paid $46,706 and had an outstanding balance of $101,900.  The defense lawyer, Frank Donahue of Donahue Hagan Klein Newsome & O'Donnell in Morristown, N.J., had billed $81,394 but agreed to cut his fee to $50,000.

In response to the fee limit, Ceconi moved to be relieved as counsel for Jane, to intervene in the case and to vacate the $50,000 cap.  Zampino denied Ceconi's motions, prompting her appeal.  At the Appellate Division, Ceconi argued that Zampino's action was arbitrary and that he improperly applied Argila v. Argila, 256 N.J. Super 484 (1992), to support his review of her fees.  Appellate Division Judges Stephen Skillman, Anthony Parrillo and Marianne Espinosa agreed that Zampino misapplied Argila.  That case did not apply in the circumstances at hand because it concerned a trial judge's discretion to award counsel fees to an adverse party, and not the reasonableness of fees a lawyer charged her own client, the panel said.