John 'Jack' Slimm concentrates his practice in complex litigation, with an emphasis on the defense of professionals including attorneys, accountants, architects and engineers, directors and officers and investment and insurance professionals. As well, Jack represents product manufacturers in product liability and toxic tort actions. Jack has significant experience in the argument of appeals in the New Jersey Supreme Court, the New Jersey Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In addition to his law practice, Jack has served as a lecturer for the American Bar Association and the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education on professional liability matters, and he has also provided seminars for insurance carriers regarding the defense of professional liability and product liability cases.
In 1970 Jack graduated from the University of Notre Dame Law School, after which he served as law secretary for the Honorable Thomas F. Dalton, J.S.C., Superior Court of New Jersey. Jack is admitted to the Bars of the state of New Jersey, state of New York and District of Columbia. He is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Court, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jack is a member of the American Bar Association, the New Jersey State Bar Association, the New Jersey Defense Association, and the International Association of Defense Counsel. He is also a master in the Camden County Inns of Court trial advocacy program and has a distinguished "AV" rating in Martindale-Hubbell.
Significant Representative Matters
Lockette v. Brewington, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Docket No: BUR-L-2285-99. This case involved a New York attorney who was sued in the state of New Jersey. Successfully tried and obtained defense verdict in complex legal malpractice action arising out of a Title 7 Employment Case.
Vogt v. Toll, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Docket No: L-1432-02, (Successful defense of appeal in App. Div. under Docket No: A-2192-02T5). In this Appellate Division decision argued by Mr. Slimm, the Appellate Division held that counterclaims for legal malpractice are mandatory and, if not filed, must be dismissed.
Camden Iron & Metal, Inc. v. Klehr Harrison, 384 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div., certif. denied), 187 N.J. 83 (2006). This is a seminal case in New Jersey in which Mr. Slimm successfully appealed the decision of the trial court. The Appellate Division has now ruled that New Jersey courts do not have the authority to regulate attorney conduct in Pennsylvania simply because the attorneys are admitted in New Jersey and have offices in New Jersey. Also, the court ruled that forum non conveniens Motions for Disqualification must be filed in the jurisdiction where the underlying litigation is pending. The court also ruled that the Rules for Professional Conduct do not provide a basis for a legal malpractice action. The New Jersey Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for certification.
Broadway Family Practice v. Willitts, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket No: CAM-L-4093-02. (Successful defense of appeal in App. Div. under Docket No: A-3700-04T1) (App. Div. 2005). In this Appellate Decision argued by Mr. Slimm, the court held that the Entire Controversy Doctrine does apply to bar legal malpractice if the attorney commits malpractice in the course of handling a case and the client becomes aware of the facts supporting the potential claim while the case is still pending. The malpractice action against the attorney must be joined with the underlying lawsuit, or it will be barred by the Entire Controversy Doctrine. The Entire Controversy Doctrine applied in that case because in April of 1997, when the underlying Chancery Division action was pending, the law was such in New Jersey that the attorney could have and should have been joined as a defendant pursuant to Mystic Isle Development Corp. v. Perskie & Nehmad, 142 N.J. 310 (1995), a case which Mr. Slimm successfully argued in the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Mystic Isle Development Corp. v. Perskie & Nehmad, 142 N.J. 310 (1995). Successful handling of appeal regarding Entire Controversy Doctrine in New Jersey Supreme Court. This is a seminal case on the Entire Controversy Doctrine as it applies to legal malpractice actions.
Trivedi v. Martin-Simmonds, A-3166-05T5 (App. Div., May 14, 2007). The Appellate Division affirmed an order for summary judgment obtained by Mr. Slimm in a legal malpractice action against Allstate's defense counsel, where there was an underlying excess verdict. Mr. Slimm successfully argued that the opinions of plaintiffs' experts were net opinions. The Appellate Division found that expert testimony is necessary in professional malpractice cases in order to establish both the applicable standard of care and whether damages were proximately caused by the alleged negligence of the attorney. This case is significant because in it the Appellate Division affirmed the order for summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of the defense attorneys appointed by All State to defend their insured in the underlying litigation. Unfortunately, there was an excess verdict, which resulted in a legal malpractice action. Nevertheless, Mr. Slimm was successful and the Appellate Division ruled that plaintiffs' experts referenced no judicial or statutory authority establishing the existence of a standard of care for defense attorneys when the client's monetary exposure over the policy limits places the client in jeopardy of substantial excess verdict.
Torban v. Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP, A-3660-05T3 (App. Div., June 27, 2007). Mr. Slimm obtained a dismissal at trial on behalf of the law firm in connection with duty of attorneys regarding post-mortem tax planning. The case was decided pursuant to the Estate of Craig Fitzgerald v. Linnus, A-6626-98T3 (App. Div. Jan. 22, 2001). This matter was affirmed on appeal. Mr. Slimm was successful in arguing that the attorneys had no duty to the testator's son for post-mortem tax planning. The Court found that the estate plan drafted by the attorneys would have been affected had the testators followed the attorney's instructions regarding retitling certain assets. This case holds that attorneys retained to counsel an executor during administration of an estate are under no duty to advise regarding post-mortem estate planning options.
Mellon Bank v. Kishbaugh, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No: AM-385-99-T3. In this action, Mr. Slimm handled both at the trial and appellate level the successful defense of professional in connection with improper appraisal use for lending purposes, leading to a failed transaction.
Herring v. NMB & AT&T, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, MID-L-00973-95. This is a seminal case involving the liability of manufacturers of keyboards in New Jersey. This was the first test case tried in New Jersey. Mrs. Slimm tried this case for six weeks resulting in a defense verdict for the computer keyboard industry.
Chemical Bank v. Mairone Biel, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County. Complex legal malpractice action. Directed verdict after two-month trial involving claims by developer against bank and bank counsel for lender liability and fraud.
Shuster v. Needle & Feldman, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, (Appellate Division Docket No. A-006288-95.) Mr. Slimm handled the trial resulting in the Court granting the Motion to Dismiss barring all the evidence. Mr. Slimm also successfully defended the appeal. This case arises out of an attorney's handling of a complex commercial transaction and the issuance of lis pendens.
Lynch v. New Jersey Education Association, 161 N.J. 152 (1999). In this action, Mr. Slimm represented the editor of the New Jersey Education Association. Senator Lynch filed an action for libel and slander against the Association, its editor, and other political figures arising out of comments made about him in his campaign for re-election. Mr. Slimm successfully argued this case in the Appellate Division and in the Supreme Court on behalf of the editor. This case is important in defamation cases as the rights, duties, and obligations of political figures are concerned. This case is cited in the comments to New Jersey Summary Judgment Rule, R.4:46-2. This case holds and encourages the Summary Judgment technique in defamation actions.) Lynch v. N.J.E.A., 161 N.J. 152 (1999).
Twp. of Gloucester v. Maryland Casualty, 702 F. Supp. 1126 (D. N.J. 1987). Mr. Slimm was lead counsel in this environmental coverage case. This is the first case in New Jersey to establish the doctrine of known risk. The case involved $100 million in damages to the township property.
Monsanto v. Lacy's Express, 5 F.3d 1490 (3d Cir. 1993). Mr. Slimm argued as lead counsel and was successful in obtaining a dismissal based upon New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine.
Meta v. Twp. of Cherry Hill, 152 N.J. Super. 228 (App. Div. 1977). Mr. Slimm handled this case at the trial and appellate levels. This is a seminal case on the immunity of municipalities in connection with injuries caused by the effect on the use of streets and highways of weather conditions.
Bell v. County of Camden, 47 N.J. Super. 139 (App. Div. 1977). Mr. Slimm handled this matter at the trial and appellate level. In this case, the Appellate Division dismissed the action based upon plaintiff's failure to comply with New Jersey Tort Claims notice requirements. A trial court, according to the Appellate Division, does not have discretion to act after an interval of one year has elapsed from the date the cause of action accrued.
Else v. O'Malley, A-4656-06T1 (App. Div., February 19, 2008). In this matter, Mr. Slimm obtained an order for summary judgment in a complex legal malpractice action arising out of an estate. The administrator was also an attorney who was appointed to administer the estate. There were delays in administration resulting in a de-valuation of property. However, Mr. Slimm was successful in arguing that the action was barred under New Jersey six-year Statute of Limitations because the plaintiff (son of the Testator) knew of these issues regarding the property and its transfer and failed to file suit within the time provided in the statute of limitations.
