COUNTERCLAIM OF BRYAN ATENZA

Bryan Atenza

142 Sapphire LN

Franklin Park, NJ 08823-1636

Phone | Fax

Email

Defendant in pro per

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION: SPECIAL CIVIL PART

UNION COUNTY

NOW COMES Bryan Atenza, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, and files this Counterclaim against Siden Family Law, LLC, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

1. PARTIES
2. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bryan Atenza is a law-abiding male adult citizen of sound mind and a resident of 142 Sapphire LN, Franklin Park, NJ 08823-1636.
3. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Seiden Family Law, LLC is a law firm with operations in the State of New Jersey.

• JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
• Rule 6:1-1(c) states as follows: “The fees charged for actions in the Special Civil Part shall be in accordance with N.J.S.A. 22A:2-37.1, provided that the face of the pleading and summons alleges the amount in controversy does not exceed $15,000, and the fees for actions which are not filed in the Special Civil Part shall be in accordance with N.J.S.A. 22A:2-6 et seq. Checks for fees and all other deposits shall be made payable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey.”
• This Counterclaim whose amount in controversy is $50,000.00. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine this Counterclaim. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff requests this Court to remove this case to a court of competent jurisdiction.

• STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO COUNTERCLAIM
• On 05/02/2017, pursuant to a retainer agreement, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff hired Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant to handle his family law matters, including a case he had at the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Case No. CS90010829A. Exhibit 1.
• Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff issued instructions to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant to file for parenting time. Instead, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant filed an application for custody.
• Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant informed Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff that the judge made an error in changing custody without finding changes in circumstances and not holding a plenary hearing.
• Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff instructed Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant to settle with the adverse party in the family matter. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant did not propose or encourage any settlement discussions with the adverse party. Instead, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant lengthened litigation through frequent and groundless letter tactics as well as false, misleading statements.
• Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant did not argue the case and deferred it to a new associate. As a matter of fact, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant hardly knew what was going on with Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s relationship with the adverse party’s attorney prevented her from properly advising Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff as she did not want to offend the adverse party’s counsel to maintain their relationship.
• Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant was the Chair of the New Jersey Family Law Board. The adverse party’s counsel took over that post from Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff avers that the foregoing working relationship prevented Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant from effectively rendering services to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant disclosed to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff that she and the adverse party’s counsel discussed Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s case in social functions. The discussions were not meant to help Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant also made claims that the adverse party was facing financial difficulties according to counsel, that’s why it was important to keep litigating.
• Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff expressed concerns in regard to the quality of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s experience and inability to continue during litigation. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant responded in an unprofessional manner.
• Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff expressed concerns that he would no longer be able to continue with the litigation due to financial constraints. From August 2018 to April 2019, on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s own accord and without instruction from Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant disregarded Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s desire to end the litigation and the balance, and continued rendering and accelerating Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s invoice for its services. It is untenable for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant to claim that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff never expressed his financial inability, yet she continued to litigate despite a revolving balance which she knew about. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant gave Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff a balance accrued during the time which Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff had given clear instructions to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant to stop litigation. From October 2018 to May 2019, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff could only afford and struggled to pay $3,677.12. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s invoice after disregarding Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s instructions to stop litigation amounted to $8,695.84.
• Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant has been harassing Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff since April 2019 in the form of asking for exorbitant fees undeservedly, and being unwilling to accept constructive criticism as a professional hired by a client.

• PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S LEGAL MALPRACTICE
• Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts in Paragraphs 1-13 of this Complaint as though set out in full herein.
• “we hold, as do most jurisdictions, that the usual principles of negligence apply to legal malpractice. The requisite elements of a cause of action for legal malpractice are: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship creating a duty of care upon the attorney; (2) the breach of that duty; and (3) proximate causation. Lovett v. Estate of Lovett, 250 N.J. Super. 79, 87, 593 A.2d 382 (Ch.Div. 1991).” Conklin v. Weisman, 678 A. 2d 1060 (1996).
• “the law requires proof that the result complained of probably would not have occurred `but for’ the negligent conduct of the defendant.” Vuocolo v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Co., 240 N.J. Super. 289, 295, 573 A.2d 196 (App.Div.) (quoting Evers v. Dollinger, 95 N.J. 399, 415, 471 A.2d 405 (1984)), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 333, 585 A.2d 349 (1990). 
• As Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s attorney, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant owed Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff a duty of care to effectively represent him. That included acting on Plaintiff’s instructions and always in the best interests of Plaintiff.
• Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant failed to effectively represent Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff when it failed to act upon his instructions to ask for additional parenting time. As a result, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff was granted custody that he did not wish to get. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant knew that it was an error but still proceeded with litigation to get money from Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
• Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff also issued instructions to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant to settle with the adverse party in the family law matter. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant failed to settle with the adverse party and instead lengthened litigation through frivolous motions, increasing costs to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
• As a result of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s improper handling of his interests, its political motives with the adverse party’s counsel and overbilling, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff suffered financial hardship.

• PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to remove this case to a court of competent jurisdiction, which Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff respectfully requests to grant him the following reliefs:

1. Grant judgment in favor of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff;
2. Award Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff damages in the sum of $50,000.00 for legal malpractice;
3. Award Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff such equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems fair; and
4. Award Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Dated this ___ day of March, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Bryan Atenza

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff in pro per

VERIFICATION

I, Bryan Atenza, being duly sworn depose and say that I have read the foregoing Counterclaim and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.

_________________________________

(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)

Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of March, 2022.

______________________________

Notary Public

________________________________________

(Printed name of Notary Public)

My Commission Expires: ____________________

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )