Hearing Required Even When Cost Exceeds Disputed Amount
In a New Jersey case reported by Debra Cassens Weiss in the ABAJournal, an appellate court decided that a hearing must be held even when the trial court thought that the cost of litigation would far exceed the amount in dispute (“Judge Who Refused Hearing on ‘Ridiculous’ Lawyer Dispute is Overturned’). The trial court had decided the case on papers rather than hold a hearing. The court had admonished the litigants, two former law partners, with the “ridiculous” comment quoted in the story title, referring to the unfortunate prospect of continuing litigation by “two very good, very competent professionals.”
The appellate court decided that the court has an obligation to go forward with a hearing.
New Jersey law is not normally on our agenda but the story is interesting because of the reflection it provides of human nature, not because of the law. We do not know the back story in this case. Thus, we should be careful about forming any conclusions specific to these two litigants.
More generally, it is not unusual in our practice for clients to be prepared to expend far more to fight than the battle is worth. Sometimes, genuine principles are involved (or intangibles nor easily measurable in dollars) and there is nothing more to be done than to support the client and try hold down the expense. More often, it is a matter of counseling and trying to get the clients to take a more dispassionate view of the case.
Public funds, as well as the clients’ own funds are involved, if a way can’t be found to resolve the issues economically.
