Legal Opinion

Pivnick v. Beck

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided December 7, 2000PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 326 N.J.Super. 474, 741 A.2d 655 (1999). We add one additional source of authoritative support.

The American Law Institute has taken a position that is consistent with the holding of the Appellate Division. Regarding suits by nonelients, section 51 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers provides that a lawyer owes a duty of care “to a nonclient when ... the lawyer knows that a client intends as one of the primary objectives of the representation that the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pivnick v. BeckNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1999

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. LoBiondo v. SchwartzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2009
  2. Pace v. KuchinskyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
  3. Barker v. BrinegarNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
  4. Azurak v. Corporate Prop. InvestorsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
  5. In re NelsonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2018

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API