WEINER LESNIAK LLP v. ATTIA DARWISH

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-1588-16T1

WEINER LESNIAK LLP, a New
Jersey Limited Liability
Partnership,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ATTIA DARWISH and MANSOURA
DARWISH,

     Defendants-Appellants.
_____________________________________

              Argued May 21, 2018 – Decided June 4, 2018

              Before Judges Ostrer and Firko.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-
              0370-16.

              Mansoura Darwish, appellant, argued the cause
              pro se.

              Robert A. Berutti argued the cause for
              respondent (Weiner Law Group, LLP, attorneys;
              Robert A. Berutti, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendants appeal the granting of summary judgment in favor

of plaintiff, their former attorneys, confirming a District Fee
Arbitration Committee decision.            We affirm for the reasons set

forth in the comprehensive written decision rendered by Judge

David H. Ironson on March 17, 2017.1

      We discern the following facts from the record.

      Plaintiff      previously     represented   defendants      in    certain

matters.   After non-payment of a $15,974.01 balance, plaintiff

served defendants with a fee arbitration notice pursuant to Rule

1:20A-2 which defendants consented to.             On March 23, 2015, the

District   X   Fee    Arbitration     Committee    issued   an    Arbitration

Determination in the amount of $10,628.51 in favor of plaintiff.

The record reveals that defendants filed a notice of appeal to the

Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) pursuant to Rule 1:20A-3(c).

      The DRB affirmed the fee arbitration award and dismissed

defendants' appeal on May 26, 2015.            Payment was not forthcoming

and   plaintiff      filed   suit    seeking   confirmation      of    the   fee

arbitration award.       Judge Ironson granted plaintiff's motion for

summary judgment and concluded that defendants did not present any

cognizable defenses.




1
  An Amended Order Granting Summary Judgment was filed on March
17, 2017, to reflect that oral argument was not heard in this
matter. The original order mistakenly noted that oral argument
was conducted.



                                       2                                A-1588-16T1
     On appeal, defendants raise the arguments that the motion

judge erred in granting summary judgment and by not permitting

discovery.2

     The grounds for appealing fee arbitration determinations are

extremely narrow.   Under Rule 1:20A-3(c), no appeal from the

determination of a Fee Committee may be taken by the client or the

attorney to the DRB except where facts are alleged that:

          (1) any member of the Fee Committee hearing
          the fee dispute failed to be disqualified in
          accordance with the standards set forth in R.
          1:12-1; or

          (2) the Fee Committee failed substantially to
          comply with the procedural requirements of R.
          1:20A, or there was substantial procedural
          unfairness that led to an unjust result; or

          (3) there was actual fraud on the part of any
          member of the Fee Committee; or

          (4) there was a palpable mistake of law by
          the Fee Committee which on its face was gross,
          unmistakable, or in manifest disregard of the
          applicable law, which mistake has led to an
          unjust result.

          Ibid.

     In this regard, the DRB "shall dismiss the appeal on notice

to the parties if it determines that the notice of appeal fails



2
  Defendants reference an arbitration hearing scheduled for
December 1, 2016. We surmise from the record that an arbitration
notice was administratively sent to the parties pursuant to Rule
4:21A-1 which has no relevance here.

                                3                          A-1588-16T1
to state a ground for appeal specified in paragraph (c) of [Rule

1:20A-3] or that the affidavit or certification fails to state a

factual basis for such ground." R. 1:20A-3(d).

     We are constrained to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.             "In

any application for the entry of a judgment in accordance with

[the fee arbitration] rule, no court shall have jurisdiction to

review a fee arbitration committee determination."           R. 1:20A-3(e);

see also In re LiVolsi, 
85 N.J. 576, 601-02, 
428 A.2d 1268 (1981)

(stating that the purpose of limiting appellate rights from fee

arbitration decisions is to control the time and expenses incurred

by clients in resolving fee disputes); Linker v. The Company Car

Corp., 
281 N.J. Super. 579 586, 
658 A.2d 1321 (App. Div. 1995)

(finding that the Law Division judge was powerless to review a fee

arbitration award).   Had defendants wanted to retain their full

appellate rights, they should have allowed the fee dispute to

proceed to court in the usual course.         Instead, they surrendered

those appellate rights when they opted for binding fee arbitration.

See R. 1:20A-2(a) ("A fee arbitration determination is final and

binding upon the parties except as provided by R. 1:20A-3(c).")

     Judge Ironson properly found that "it is undisputed that an

Arbitration   Determination   was       entered   by   the   District    Fee

Arbitration Committee on [sic] in favor of plaintiff in the amount

of $10,628.51."

                                    4                               A-1588-16T1
       As determined by Judge Ironson, "the rule now makes clear

that the decision of the fee arbitration committee is final and

binding on the parties, and that, pursuant to Rule 1:20A-3(c), the

Board alone, has appellate jurisdiction in these matters."      See

Linker v. Co. Car Corp., 
28 N.J. Super. 579 (App. Div. 1995).     We

agree.

       As for the remaining arguments presented by defendants not

expressly discussed above, they are without sufficient merit to

warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and

(E).

       Appeal dismissed.




                                 5                         A-1588-16T1