NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0252-24
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAJEH A. SAADEH, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CESAR URVINA GALLEGOS a/k/a GIOVANI URBINA,
Defendant-Respondent. __________________________
Argued September 16, 2025 – Decided September 23, 2025
Before Judges Firko and Perez Friscia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. L-0879-24.
Cynthia L. Dubell argued the cause for appellant (The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC, attorneys; Cynthia L. Dubell, on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM Plaintiff, The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC (Saadeh, LLC),
appeals from the August 12, 2024 order of the Law Division to the extent it
denied Saadeh, LLC's application for costs of collection and attorney's fees. We
reverse the portion of the order under appeal and remand for further proceedings.
I.
The material facts are derived from the record and are not in dispute. In
December 2022, defendant, Cesar Urvina Gallegos, signed a retainer agreement
hiring Saadeh, LLC in connection with a non-litigation pension collection
matter. The fees and disbursements to be charged to defendant for Saadeh,
LLC's services are set forth in the retainer agreement. Relevant here, the retainer
agreement details the steps Saadeh, LLC may take to collect unpaid fees and
disbursements in paragraph C: "If we utilize any legal process to collect any
amount outstanding, we [Saadeh, LLC] will be entitled to recover the costs of
collection, including for professional time expended by attorneys in and outside
of [Saadeh, LLC], and reasonable expenses, including but not limited to court,
service, and execution costs." Defendant signed the retainer agreement.
Pursuant to the retainer agreement, Saadeh, LLC sent defendant five
monthly bills covering the period of December 7, 2022, through May 8, 2023.
The charges totaled $4,466.70, less the $1,500 retainer fee paid. When
A-0252-24 2 defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount, Saadeh, LLC instituted a fee
arbitration to collect the amount due and owing.
On January 8, 2024, the parties participated in fee arbitration. Defendant,
who was self-represented, claimed he initially paid Saadeh, LLC $1,675, not
$1,500. Defendant also expressed dissatisfaction with Saadeh, LLC's
representation. The fee arbitration committee found the attorney's testimony
"credible" that defendant was not guaranteed success in recouping denied
pension benefits. However, the fee arbitration committee found Saadeh, LLC
did not satisfy its burden to establish the reasonableness of certain charges and
awarded Saadeh, LLC $2,369, payable within thirty days.
Defendant did not appeal or pay the arbitration award within the
prescribed thirty days. Pursuant to Rule 1:20A-3(e) and Rule 4:67-1(a), Saadeh,
LLC filed an order to show cause (OTSC) and a verified complaint for an entry
of judgment in the amount of $2,369 against defendant and for the costs of
collection including a reasonable allowance for professional time expended by
attorneys at Saadeh, LLC, in accordance with paragraph C of the retainer
agreement. Defendant, again self-represented, filed an answer disputing the fee
award and reiterating his dissatisfaction with Saadeh, LLC.
A-0252-24 3 On August 12, 2024, the trial court conducted oral argument on Saadeh,
LLC's OTSC and rendered an oral opinion. The trial court granted Saadeh,
LLC's request to reduce the arbitration determination to a judgment against
defendant. With respect to Saadeh, LLC's request for costs of collection and
attorney's fees, the trial court denied the requested relief. The trial court stated
it "sat on a District Fee Arbitration Committee for years" and was unaware "of
any provision . . . in which an attorney gets attorney's fees for turning that
determination into a judgment after [thirty] days." A memorializing order was
entered. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Saadeh, LLC reiterates its argument made before the trial court
and contends it is contractually entitled to costs of collection, including
professional time expended by its attorneys and reasonable expenses from
defendant.
II.
We are guided in our analysis of Saadeh, LLC's arguments by our holding
in Hrycak v. Kiernan, 367 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 2004). In that matter,
Hrycak, an attorney, represented Kiernan in a matter before the Chancery Part.
Id. at 238-39. In that case, the parties' retainer agreement provided that should
Hrycak bring suit against [Kiernan] for fees due under this agreement, and after
A-0252-24 4 the requisite pre-action notice required by Rules Governing the Courts of New
Jersey, [Kiernan] shall be responsible for all fees and attorney['s] fees with a
minimum of $450[] attorney's fees for the filing of same. Id. at 239 (third
alteration in original).
After Hrycak sent Kiernan a bill for services rendered, Kiernan paid only
a portion of the amount due, claiming Hrycak guaranteed there would be a cap
on the cost of his services. Ibid. The dispute was brought before a fee arbitration
committee, which determined the reasonable fee for Hrycak's services. Ibid.
The arbitration determination resulted in an outstanding unpaid balance of
$2,231.57 owed by Kiernan. Ibid. Kiernan did not appeal the arbitration
determination, but also did not pay the amount due within thirty days. Ibid.
Thereafter, Hrycak filed a complaint in the Law Division seeking to
reduce the arbitration determination to a judgment against Kiernan, and for an
award of $450 in attorney's fees in accord with the parties' retainer agreement.
Ibid. The application was accompanied by a detailed account of the professional
services Hrycak performed in filing the complaint. Ibid. The trial court entered
judgment in the amount of the arbitration determination but denied the request
for attorney's fees. Id. at 239-40.
A-0252-24 5 We reversed. We noted that agreements between attorneys and their
clients generally are enforceable as long as they are fair and reasonable. Id. at
240. In addition, we observed that the court rules do not prohibit the award of
attorney's fees that are provided for in the parties' retainer agreement. Ibid. We
held:
[i]n accordance with these authorities, we are not presented with any reasons why Hrycak should be denied fees incurred in collecting an arbitration award. Subject to review for reasonableness by the court, the collection fee with a minimum of $450 was based upon the express terms of the retainer agreement.
[Ibid.]
We noted that "the retainer [does not] penalize[] the client for a fixed
percentage of the fees owed if the attorney is forced to file suit to collect." Ibid.
(citing Gruber & Colabella, P.A. v. Erickson, 345 N.J. Super. 248, 253 (Law
Div. 2001) (holding unenforceable a provision in a retainer which added one -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0252-24
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAJEH A. SAADEH, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CESAR URVINA GALLEGOS a/k/a GIOVANI URBINA,
Defendant-Respondent. __________________________
Argued September 16, 2025 – Decided September 23, 2025
Before Judges Firko and Perez Friscia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. L-0879-24.
Cynthia L. Dubell argued the cause for appellant (The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC, attorneys; Cynthia L. Dubell, on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM Plaintiff, The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC (Saadeh, LLC),
appeals from the August 12, 2024 order of the Law Division to the extent it
denied Saadeh, LLC's application for costs of collection and attorney's fees. We
reverse the portion of the order under appeal and remand for further proceedings.
I.
The material facts are derived from the record and are not in dispute. In
December 2022, defendant, Cesar Urvina Gallegos, signed a retainer agreement
hiring Saadeh, LLC in connection with a non-litigation pension collection
matter. The fees and disbursements to be charged to defendant for Saadeh,
LLC's services are set forth in the retainer agreement. Relevant here, the retainer
agreement details the steps Saadeh, LLC may take to collect unpaid fees and
disbursements in paragraph C: "If we utilize any legal process to collect any
amount outstanding, we [Saadeh, LLC] will be entitled to recover the costs of
collection, including for professional time expended by attorneys in and outside
of [Saadeh, LLC], and reasonable expenses, including but not limited to court,
service, and execution costs." Defendant signed the retainer agreement.
Pursuant to the retainer agreement, Saadeh, LLC sent defendant five
monthly bills covering the period of December 7, 2022, through May 8, 2023.
The charges totaled $4,466.70, less the $1,500 retainer fee paid. When
A-0252-24 2 defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount, Saadeh, LLC instituted a fee
arbitration to collect the amount due and owing.
On January 8, 2024, the parties participated in fee arbitration. Defendant,
who was self-represented, claimed he initially paid Saadeh, LLC $1,675, not
$1,500. Defendant also expressed dissatisfaction with Saadeh, LLC's
representation. The fee arbitration committee found the attorney's testimony
"credible" that defendant was not guaranteed success in recouping denied
pension benefits. However, the fee arbitration committee found Saadeh, LLC
did not satisfy its burden to establish the reasonableness of certain charges and
awarded Saadeh, LLC $2,369, payable within thirty days.
Defendant did not appeal or pay the arbitration award within the
prescribed thirty days. Pursuant to Rule 1:20A-3(e) and Rule 4:67-1(a), Saadeh,
LLC filed an order to show cause (OTSC) and a verified complaint for an entry
of judgment in the amount of $2,369 against defendant and for the costs of
collection including a reasonable allowance for professional time expended by
attorneys at Saadeh, LLC, in accordance with paragraph C of the retainer
agreement. Defendant, again self-represented, filed an answer disputing the fee
award and reiterating his dissatisfaction with Saadeh, LLC.
A-0252-24 3 On August 12, 2024, the trial court conducted oral argument on Saadeh,
LLC's OTSC and rendered an oral opinion. The trial court granted Saadeh,
LLC's request to reduce the arbitration determination to a judgment against
defendant. With respect to Saadeh, LLC's request for costs of collection and
attorney's fees, the trial court denied the requested relief. The trial court stated
it "sat on a District Fee Arbitration Committee for years" and was unaware "of
any provision . . . in which an attorney gets attorney's fees for turning that
determination into a judgment after [thirty] days." A memorializing order was
entered. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Saadeh, LLC reiterates its argument made before the trial court
and contends it is contractually entitled to costs of collection, including
professional time expended by its attorneys and reasonable expenses from
defendant.
II.
We are guided in our analysis of Saadeh, LLC's arguments by our holding
in Hrycak v. Kiernan, 367 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 2004). In that matter,
Hrycak, an attorney, represented Kiernan in a matter before the Chancery Part.
Id. at 238-39. In that case, the parties' retainer agreement provided that should
Hrycak bring suit against [Kiernan] for fees due under this agreement, and after
A-0252-24 4 the requisite pre-action notice required by Rules Governing the Courts of New
Jersey, [Kiernan] shall be responsible for all fees and attorney['s] fees with a
minimum of $450[] attorney's fees for the filing of same. Id. at 239 (third
alteration in original).
After Hrycak sent Kiernan a bill for services rendered, Kiernan paid only
a portion of the amount due, claiming Hrycak guaranteed there would be a cap
on the cost of his services. Ibid. The dispute was brought before a fee arbitration
committee, which determined the reasonable fee for Hrycak's services. Ibid.
The arbitration determination resulted in an outstanding unpaid balance of
$2,231.57 owed by Kiernan. Ibid. Kiernan did not appeal the arbitration
determination, but also did not pay the amount due within thirty days. Ibid.
Thereafter, Hrycak filed a complaint in the Law Division seeking to
reduce the arbitration determination to a judgment against Kiernan, and for an
award of $450 in attorney's fees in accord with the parties' retainer agreement.
Ibid. The application was accompanied by a detailed account of the professional
services Hrycak performed in filing the complaint. Ibid. The trial court entered
judgment in the amount of the arbitration determination but denied the request
for attorney's fees. Id. at 239-40.
A-0252-24 5 We reversed. We noted that agreements between attorneys and their
clients generally are enforceable as long as they are fair and reasonable. Id. at
240. In addition, we observed that the court rules do not prohibit the award of
attorney's fees that are provided for in the parties' retainer agreement. Ibid. We
held:
[i]n accordance with these authorities, we are not presented with any reasons why Hrycak should be denied fees incurred in collecting an arbitration award. Subject to review for reasonableness by the court, the collection fee with a minimum of $450 was based upon the express terms of the retainer agreement.
[Ibid.]
We noted that "the retainer [does not] penalize[] the client for a fixed
percentage of the fees owed if the attorney is forced to file suit to collect." Ibid.
(citing Gruber & Colabella, P.A. v. Erickson, 345 N.J. Super. 248, 253 (Law
Div. 2001) (holding unenforceable a provision in a retainer which added one -
third of the outstanding legal fees to the client's bill if the attorney is forced to
collect)). "Under those agreements," we held, "there is the potential for an
attorney to receive an unreasonable fee if little work was necessary to enforce
the additional fee claim." Ibid. We added,
[a]n arbitration committee has already determined the reasonable value of Hrycak's services and that he was owed money. After arbitration, when Kiernan still
A-0252-24 6 refused to honor his obligation, Hrycak was forced [to] take the matter to the Law Division to perfect his rights. For Hrycak's reasonable time and effort in seeking his fee, especially where the balance awarded was unjustifiably withheld, we see no reason why he should be denied compensation for additional work required in enforcing the award as covered by the retainer agreement.
[Id. at 241.]
We see no reason to depart from the holding in Hrycak in the matter under
review. Defendant executed the retainer agreement providing that he would be
responsible for the costs of collection and a reasonable attorney's fee in the event
Saadeh, LLC was compelled to institute legal action to collect unpaid fees.
Defendant took advantage of fee arbitration, but refused to pay the arbitration
determination. Thus, he is liable under the retainer agreement for the costs and
attorney's fees incurred by Saadeh, LLC to reduce the arbitration determination
to a judgment.
The August 12, 2024 order is reversed to the extent that it denied Saadeh,
LLC's application for collection costs and reasonable attorney's fees. The matter
is remanded for the entry of an order awarding collection costs and reasonable
attorney's fees incurred by Saadeh, LLC after entry of the arbitration
determination. We leave to the trial court in the first instance to review a
certification of costs and services to be submitted by Saadeh, LLC on remand
A-0252-24 7 and determine what amounts constitute reasonable compensation to Saadeh,
LLC. We express no opinion as to what the outcome should be.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-0252-24 8