Response to Seiden Family Law’s Letter

Bryan Atenza

142 Sapphire LN,

Franklin Park, NJ 08823-1636

Insert Phone Number

Insert Email

Insert Date

Honorable Rosalba L. Comas, J.S.C.,

Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey

Union County Courthouse

2 Broad Street, 3rd Floor, Old Annex

Elizabeth, NJ 07207

Dear Judge Comas,

RE: Response to Seiden Family Law’s Letter Sent on March 29, 2022 (Seiden Family Law, LLC v. Bryan Atenza, Docket No.: UNN-DC-10039-21)

On 03/29/2022, learned counsel for Seiden Family Law, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “SFL”) served upon the court and Bryan Atenza a letter which constitutes an objection to Bryan Atenza’s pleadings filed to transfer the above case to the Law Division and to dismiss SFL’s Complaint. This letter is Bryan Atenza’s response to the statements made by SFL through its learned counsel.

SFL alleges that Bryan has failed to provide proof to establish reasonable cause for success at trial. In exercising his right to file a counterclaim in accordance with N.J. Ct. R. 4:7, Bryan has to bring his counterclaim to the court with appropriate jurisdiction. It is clear under N.J. Ct. R. 6:1-1(c) that the Special Civil Part of the Superior Court of New Jersey only has jurisdiction in matters whose amount in controversy does not exceed $15,000. The amount in controversy of Bryan’s counterclaim is $50,000. Bryan cannot provide proof of reasonable success because this Court has no jurisdiction to hear his case. That is for the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey which has jurisdiction under N.J. Const., Art. VI, § 3(2) to determine.

Bryan has raised no objection or claim in regard to the no-guarantee clause in the retainer agreement. Bryan’s objections and claims are in regard to the fact that he issued express instructions to Sheryl Seiden to file for parenting time and she filed an application for custody, that Sheryl failed to settle the case despite express instructions from Bryan to do so, that Sheryl’s conflict of interest prevented her from effectively representing Bryan, and that Bryan expressly informed Sheryl that he would not be able to pursue the case any longer but Sheryl continued to work on Bryan’s case. SFL has omitted the foregoing facts to mislead the court that there is no wrongdoing on their end.

In Re Verni, 172 N.J. 315 (2002), an attorney was suspended for charging excessive fees in three matters and knowingly making false statements to disciplinary authorities, and making a divorce case appear more complicated than it was in order to justify a higher fee. Similarly, Sheryl’s foregoing actions made Bryan’s divorce case more complicated than it needed to be. She filed for custody instead of parenting time and even failed to settle with the adverse party as instructed by Bryan. She also proceeded to bill Bryan for unauthorized work. Sheryl Siden should be suspended for charging Bryan excessive fees and making his divorce case more complicated than it needed to be.

“When a client employs an attorney, he has a right to presume, if the latter be silent on the point, that he has no engagements, which interfere, in any degree, with his exclusive devotion to the cause confided to him; that he has no interest, which may betray his judgment, or endanger his fidelity.” In re Kamp, 40 N.J. 588, 595 (1963), quoting Williams v. Reed, 3 Mason 405, 418 (C.C. Maine 1824). Sheryl caused multiple adjournments of Bryan’s case so she could attend retreats and was frequently out of court when Bryan’s case was ongoing. She failed to devote herself to representing Bryan as an attorney is required to do.

Well settled is the principle that “the primary reason for discipline is not to punish the attorney but to protect the public against members of the bar who are unworthy of their trust.” In re Lunn, 118 N.J. 163, 167, 570 A.2d 940 (1990). Sheryl continues to advertise her services and deceive the public with representations of litigation fatigue in order to convince vulnerable clients to continue paying for her services. Sheryl’s actions demonstrate that she should not be in a position to guide people through litigation or any other proceeding. She should be suspended to protect members of the public from her.

Bryan respectfully requests you to STRIKE the letter sent by SFL on 03/29/2022, GRANT his Motion for Summary Judgment and ISSUE a declaration that this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to hear Bryan’s counterclaim. Thank you for taking your time to read this letter.

Yours Sincerely,


Bryan Atenza,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff in pro per

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 )