JAMES T. KOPEC VS. ANNA M. MOERS JOSEPH LOPRESTI VS. JENNIFER LOPRESTI RICK G. ZORN VS. CHRISTINA ZORN SAMUEL MCGEE VS. LILLIAN MCGEE SANDRA WEED VS. LEROY WEED II MARY DETER VS. ROY L. DETER KAREN PREVETE VS. THOMAS MENDIBURU CHRIS DEFONTES VS. NICOLE DEFONTES CHRISTINE OSHIDAR VS. DARIUS OSHIDAR SUZZAN M. HEISLER VS. ERIC HEISLER (FM-19-0423-15, FM-19-0177-16, FM-19-0063-14, FM-20-0815-15, FM-14-0311-16, FM-14-0691-16, FM-14-1312-04, FM-14-0753-13, FM-03-1029-12, and FM-03-1221-13, SUSSEX, UNION, MORRIS, AND BURLINGTON COUNTIES AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-2551-18/A-2552-18/A-2553-18/A-2554-18/A-2726-18/A-2731-18/A-2758-18/A-3579-18/A-4190-18/A-4191-18)
In these ten back-to-back appeals, consolidated for the purpose of issuing one opinion, Weinberger Divorce & Family Law Group, LLC filed post-judgment motions in the Chancery Division, Family Part, to enforce its retainer agreements against its former clients. The law firm sought judgments for unpaid fees, or alternatively, orders compelling the parties to attend binding arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in its retainer agreements. The court affirms the denial of the law firm's enforcement motions, concluding: its applications should have been filed as complaints in the Law Division pursuant to the Rules of Court; the law firm was not entitled to entry of judgment for fees in any of the matters because it failed to provide the courts with the necessary information to assess the reasonableness of the fees requested by the firm; and the binding arbitration provision in the firm's retainer agreement is unenforceable because its vague, confusing and contradictory language fails to support the conclusion that the clients and the law firm mutually assented to its terms
