Don t Clog the Court and Other Tips to Avoid Destroying a Masterpiece of a Case Moderator/Speaker: Hon. Peter F. Bariso, Jr., A.J.S.C.

Transcription

1 2016 NJSBA Mid-Year Meeting Don t Clog the Court and Other Tips to Avoid Destroying a Masterpiece of a Case Moderator/Speaker: Hon. Peter F. Bariso, Jr., A.J.S.C., Hudson Speakers: Domenick Carmagnola, Esq., NJSBA Secretary Carmagnola & Ritardi, LLC, Morristown Dominic V. Caruso, Esq. The Law Offices of Dominic V. Caruso, Clifton William H. Mergner, Esq. Leary Bride Tinker & Moran, Cedar Knolls William E. Staehle, Esq. Law Offices of William E. Staehle. Morristown 2016 New Jersey State Bar Association. All rights reserved. Any copying of material herein, in whole or in part, and by any means without written permission is prohibited. Requests for such permission should be sent to the New Jersey State Bar Association, New Jersey Law Center, One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, New Jersey The material contained in these pages is for educational purposes only and not intended as a substitute for the professional services an attorney would normally provide to a client, including up to the minute legal research.

2 DON T CLOG THE COURT AND OTHER TIPS TO AVOID DESTROYING A MASTERPIECE OF A CASE 1 I. N.J.R.E. 611 and a Trial Judge s Discretion to Control the Trial Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation (a) Control by court. --The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. (b) Scope of cross-examination. --Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. (c) Leading questions. --Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily, leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls an adverse party or a witness identified with an adverse party, or when a witness demonstrates hostility or unresponsiveness, interrogation may be by leading questions, subject to the discretion of the court. Trial judges are entitled to exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of presentation and interrogation of witnesses. N.J.R.E. 611(a). They have wide discretion in exercising that control over their courtrooms. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.Y., 352 N.J. Super. 245, 264 (App. Div. 2002). Adjournments because of illness and other emergencies may certainly be considered by a trial court in determining the order of witnesses. State v. Rodriquez, 264 N.J. Super. 261, 275 (App. Div. 1993), aff d o.b., 135 N.J. 3 (1994). The court's discretion as to the order and presentation of witnesses is not, however, unbounded. In another context, the Court of Errors and Appeals has observed that through the centuries a certain order for the producing of proofs had been adopted as the best means of reaching a fair and expeditious conclusion of disputes. That order should be the procedure except where, in the discretion of the trial judge, there is adequate reason for variation.... Armour v. Armour, 138 N.J. Eq. 145, 161 (E. & A. 1946). 1 Unless otherwise indicated, the quoted material is taken from unpublished opinions of our Appellate Division, and we thank its judges for their research and scholarship. Page 1 of 6

3 The exercise of discretion implies conscientious judgment taking into account the law and the particular circumstances of the case and is directed by reason and conscience of the judge to a just result. Sokol v. Liebstein, 9 N.J. 93, 99 (1952). In reviewing the discretionary decisions of the trial court we do not decide whether the trial court took the wisest course, or even the better course, since to do so would merely be to substitute our judgment for that of the lower court. The question is only whether the trial judge pursued a manifestly unjust course. Gillman v. Bally Mfg. Corp., 286 N.J. Super. 523, 528 (App. Div.) (quoting Gittleman v. Central Jersey Bank & Trust Co., 103 N.J. Super. 175, 179 (App. Div. 1967), rev'd on other grounds, 52 N.J. 503 (1968)), certif. denied, 144 N.J. 174 (1996). The New Jersey Supreme Court has described an abuse of discretion as a decision... made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis. In other words, a functional approach to abuse of discretion examines whether there are good reasons for an appellate court to defer to the particular decision at issue." Flagg v. Essex County Prosecutor, 171 N.J.561, 571 (2002) (quoting Achacoso-Sanchez v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 779 F.2d 1260, 1265 (7th Cir. 1985)). II. Motions In Limine What They Are and When to Bring Them The term in limine is taken from the Latin phrase, at the outset. Black's Law Dictionary 791 (9th ed. 2009). The absence of any rule addressing what may properly be considered as a preliminary matter before trial commences has permitted the timing of the motion, rather than its subject matter, to pass for a definition. However, whether a motion is correctly termed a motion in limine is not dictated by the fact it is brought literally on the threshold of trial. Black's defines a motion in limine as [a] pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial. Id. at Thus, it is anticipated that, as a general rule, a motion in limine will not have a dispositive impact on a litigant's entire case. Even when a limited issue is presented, [o]ur courts generally disfavor in limine rulings on evidence questions, "because the trial provides a superior context for the consideration of such issues. State v. Cordero, 438 N.J. Super. 472, (App. Div. 2014), certif. denied, 221 N.J. 287 (2015). Although a trial judge "retains the discretion, in appropriate cases, to rule on the admissibility of evidence pre-trial, id. at 484, we have cautioned that [r]equests for Page 2 of 6

4 such rulings should be granted only sparingly. Ibid. (quoting Bellardini v. Krikorian, 222 N.J. Super. 457, 464 (App. Div. 1988); see also Biunno, Weissbard & Zegas, Current N.J. Rules of Evidence, comment 1 on N.J.R.E. 105 (2015). This is particularly true when the "motion in limine" seeks the exclusion of an expert's testimony, an objective that has the concomitant effect of rendering a plaintiff's claim futile. See Bellardini, supra, 222 N.J. Super. at The fact that this misuse of the motion in limine occurs sufficiently often to win our notice, despite our repeated cautions against such practice, leads us to conclude it necessary to state clearly what a motion in limine is not. It is not a summary judgment motion that happens to be filed on the eve of trial. When granting a motion will result in the dismissal of a plaintiff's case or the suppression of a defendant's defenses, the motion is subject to Rule 4:46, the rule that governs summary judgment motions. Cho v. Trinitas Regional Medical Center, 443 N.J. Super 461 (App. Div. 2015). III. IV. Trial Tips Prepare; Demonstrative Evidence, legal memos Pre-Trial Exchange Be on time; impact on jurors and court Review ground rules with trial judge; meaningful pre-trial discussions Jury selection Succinct openings, closing Move things along Make your record Motions during trial Too many objections (Sometimes being goaded by adversary) Too much legalize; speak English Listen to witness's answers One too many questions, especially on cross examination Take a hint from court Observe jurors; Questions from jurors; Notetaking Judges Who Question Witnesses If You re Going to Try My Case for Me, Your Honor, Please Don t Lose It. The authority of the judge to ask questions of witnesses is well established. Pursuant to N.J.R.E. 614, [t]he judge, in accordance with law and subject to the right of a party to make timely objection, may... interrogate any witness. In addition, the Supreme Court long ago recognized that [t]he trial judge may question a witness in order to clarify existing testimony or to elicit further information from him. Ridgewood Page 3 of 6

5 v. Sreel Inv. Corp., 28 N.J. 121, 132 (1958) (citations omitted). It has long been recognized, however, that the power to take an active part in the trial of a case must be exercised by the judge with the greatest restraint, especially before a jury." Ibid. (quoting Polulich v. J.G. Schmidt Tool Die & Stamping Co., 46 N.J. Super. 135, 144 (Cty. Ct. 1957)). See also State v. Aeschbach, 107 N.J.L. 433, 438 (E. & A. 1931) (noting that the right of the court to ask pertinent and material questions cannot be successfully controverted ). More recently, the Court reaffirmed that in presiding over a jury trial, the judge, who holds a powerful symbolic position vis-àvis jurors, must maintain a mien of impartiality and must refrain from any action that would suggest that he favors one side over the other, or has a view regarding the credibility of a party or a witness. [State v. O'Brien, 200 N.J. 520, 523 (2009) (citing State v. Taffaro, 195 N.J. 442, 451 (2008)).] The critical issue is whether it can fairly be said that the interrogation by the judge deprived the complaining party of an impartial trial. State v. Soriano, 107 N.J. Super. 286, 288 (App. Div. 1968), affirmed o.b., 54 N.J. 567 (1969). V. Remittitur and Additur What s Left after Cuevas? Cuevas v. Wentworth Group, 144 A.3d 890 (N.J. 2016) In Cuevas, the court concluded that a judge's reliance on personal knowledge of other verdicts and on purportedly comparable verdicts presented by the parties in deciding whether to remit a pain-and-suffering damages award... is not sound in principle or workable in practice. Id. (slip op. at 3). The Court held: The standard is not whether a damages award shocks the judge's personal conscience, but whether it shocks the judicial conscience. Ibid. The Court disapproved of the comparative-verdict methodology that allows parties to present supposedly comparable verdicts based on case summaries. Ibid. The Court explained: In the end, a thorough analysis of the case itself; of the witnesses' testimony; of the nature, extent, and duration of the plaintiff's injuries; and of the impact of those injuries on the plaintiff's life will yield the best record on which to decide a remittitur motion. Id. (slip op. at 39). Page 4 of 6

6 VI. Motions for Summary Judgment Should Exceedingly Weak Cases Go To Trial, or Is It Time for a Comparative Negligence Analysis? Summary judgment for the defendant is appropriate in a case where a plaintiff s negligence is so great that no reasonable juror can conclude that his or her negligence did not exceed the defendant s negligence.... When evidence of the plaintiff s negligence is sufficiently strong to forbid a rational factfinder from concluding that the plaintiff s negligence did not exceed the defendant s negligence, the court should enter summary judgment for the defendant. Vega v. Piedilato, 154 N.J. 496, (Handler, J. concurring).... Permitting a court to grant summary judgment for a defendant on the basis of the plaintiff s comparative negligence comports with our summary judgment jurisprudence. Id. at 529, citing Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). VII. Use of Technology (Courthouse Facilities) Is It Worth It? (PPT, Elmo, etc.) Our courts have not yet addressed the use of PowerPoint presentations during opening statements or summations in criminal trials in a published opinion. Other courts have, however, considered the matter. The Nevada Supreme Court has concluded that a PowerPoint, as an advocate's tool, is not inherently good or bad and that its propriety depends on content and application. Watters v. State, 313 P.3d 243, 247 (Nev. 2013). The Court further determined that a PowerPoint accompanying an opening is permissible if the content is consistent with the scope and purpose of opening statements and does not put inadmissible evidence or improper argument before the jury. Ibid. We fully agree that the content, not the medium, is important. That view is consistent with the approach our Supreme Court has taken with respect to other technological advances used in connection with trial court proceedings. See, e.g., State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109, 122 (2011) (directing that in responding to a request to review testimony, the trial court's focus should be on the proper controls and limits needed to ensure a fair proceeding, not the medium used to create a record ). Faced with a pre-presentation challenge to use of a PowerPoint in an opening, a court should apply the law governing opening statements. In some respects, use of PowerPoints has potential to advance the interests of fairness in opening statements because the court may direct removal of prejudicial material.... State of New Jersey v. Rivera, 437 N.J. Super. 434 (App.Div. 2014). Page 5 of 6

7 VIII. 2014) Learned Treatises Powerful Evidence or Waste of Time? Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions Not Dependent on Declarant's Unavailability The following statements are not excluded by the hearsay rule: (c) Statements not dependent on declarant's availability. -- Whether or not the declarant is available as a witness: (18) Learned treatises. To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination or relied upon by the expert in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by testimony or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may not be received as exhibits but may be read into evidence or, if graphics, shown to the jury. In order to use a learned treatise as substantive evidence, an expert witness must lay a foundation for the reliability and authoritativeness of the text. Jacober v. St. Peter's Med. Ctr., 128 N.J. 475, 491 (1992) (citing Schneider v. Revici, 817 F.2d 987 (2d Cir. 1987)), modified in part on other grounds, 130 N.J. 586 (1992). Mere publication does not automatically render a text a reliable authority. Ibid. (citing Meschino v. N. Am.Drager, Inc., 841 F.2d 429, 434 (1st Cir. 1988)). [T]he treatise must be relied upon by experts in the field, albeit not necessarily by the expert on the stand. Bird v. Somerset Hills Country Club, 309 N.J. Super. 517, 523 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 609 (1998); Jacober, supra, 128 N.J. at 495. Once established as reliable, the contents of learned treatises may be introduced as substantive evidence by experts on both direct and cross examination. Jacober, supra, 128 N.J. at 478. However, a party may not generally introduce a treatise into evidence as a substitute for expert testimony. Morlino v. Med. Ctr., 152 N.J. 563, (1998) (citing Adamski v. Moss, 271 N.J. Super. 513, (App. Div. 1994)); Tyndall v. Zaboski, 306 N.J. Super. 423, 428 (App. Div. 1997), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 404 (1998); Canesi v. Wilson, 295 N.J. Super. 354, 360 (App. Div. 1996), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 158 N.J. 490 (1999); see also Biunno, Current New Jersey Rules of Evidence, Comment on N.J.R.E. 803(c)(18). Page 6 of 6

8 Peter F. Bariso, Jr., A.J.S.C. Hudson County Honorable Peter F. Bariso, Jr., A.J.S.C. was appointed to the Superior Court in January 2005 and is currently the Assignment Judge of the Hudson Vicinage sitting in Jersey City, New Jersey. Prior to his appointment as Assignment Judge, he served as the Civil Presiding Judge from 2006 to He was certified as a Civil Trial Attorney by the Supreme Court of New Jersey and was formerly the Chair of the Litigation Department at Chasan, Leyner, Bariso & Lamparello, PC in Secaucus, New Jersey. Judge Bariso also served as attorney for the East Rutherford Board of Education for twenty years. Judge Bariso is a member of the Conference of Assignment Judges as well as the Judicial Council. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on Expedited Civil Actions where he serves as the Pre-Trial Subcommittee Chair. Judge Bariso is a former member of the Supreme Court Special Committee on Peremptory Challenges and Jury Voir Dire where he served as Chair of the Civil Subcommittee. He is also a former member of the Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee. Judge Bariso is a former Chair of the Conference of Civil Presiding Judges. He previously served as Chair of both the Supreme Court Arbitration Advisory Committee and the Hudson County Advisory Committee on Minority Concerns. Judge Bariso is a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association, the Hudson County Bar Association and the Essex County Bar Association. Judge Bariso frequently lectures on civil litigation issues for the Judiciary, the New Jersey State Bar Association, the Hudson County Bar Association and the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education, among other organizations. He has been an instructor for ICLE s Civil Law segment of the Skills and Methods course for newly admitted attorneys. Judge Bariso is a recipient of NJICLE Distinguished Service Award for Excellence in Continuing Legal Education. Judge Bariso has had four trial court opinions approved for publication: Dobco v. Brockwell & Carrington, 441 N.J. Super. 148 (Law Div. 2015) Town of Harrison Bd. v. Netchert, 439 N.J. Super. 164 (Law Div. 2015) Camacho v. Camacho, 381 N.J. Super. 395 (Law Div. 2005) Smith v. Moustiatse, 388 N.J. Super. 273 (Law Div. 2005) Judge Bariso has also contributed to numerous publications used as seminar material for The New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education over the past 20 years. Some of the more recent publications were seminar material for Hot Topics for Civil Litigators (2014); Effectively Using Objections at Depositions and Trial: A Crash Course from Some of the State s Top Judges and Attorneys (2011); 2011 Civil Trial Practice: The Judicial Perspective (2011); 2010 Automobile Insurance Update: Keys for Handling the Automobile Accident Case; Keys to Jury Selection in a Civil Case (2010); Effectively Using Objections at Deposition and Trial: A Crash Course from some of the State s top Judges and Attorneys (2008); Beyond the Court Rules: What the Presiding Judges Really Think (2008); Medicine for Lawyers: Winning Neck & Back Injury Cases (2008); 2007 Tort Law Conference (2007). He is also a contributing author on Education Law for Encyclopedia of New Jersey (2004). Judge Bariso received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Rutgers University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He received his J.D. from Rutgers University School of Law.

9 Domenick Carmagnola Carmagnola & Ritardi, LLC Domenick Carmagnola, a certified civil trial attorney, concentrates his practice in the areas of labor and employment law representing management and individual defendants in both the private and public sector; non-compete litigation; appellate practice; commercial litigation and business disputes. His practice involves counseling on, and litigation of, all types of labor and employment matters including discrimination claims, sexual harassment claims, breach of contract, whistleblower, public policy and employment-at-will claims, restrictive covenant and trade secret matters, business torts, and NLRB claims. He also provides advice concerning company policies and procedures, training of employees and performs internal corporate investigations. He is a past President of the Essex County Bar Association (ECBA), having also served ECBA as Vice-President, Treasurer, Secretary and a Trustee. He is an active member of the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA). He currently serves as a Trustee on the NJSBA Board of Trustees and is the Chair of the NJSBA Labor and Employment Section Executive Committee. He is also an Editor Emeritus of the NJSBA Labor and Employment Law Quarterly, having previously served as Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor and Editorial Board member. He is a Past President of the Sidney Reitman Labor and Employment Law American Inn of Court, having served as President from 2001 to He co-authored the chapter on "Employment Torts" in the Desk Reference Book, Business Torts Litigation (ABA 1992, 1999 and 2004) and was an Editor/Chapter Co-Author of the ABA publication Employment Litigation Handbook (ABA, 1998) Desk Reference and was an Editor/Chapter Author of New Jersey Labor and Employment Law, published by New Jersey ICLE (ICLE, 1998 and 2005). He was an Associate Editor of the ECBA book, Traps for the Unwary (ECBA, 1997) and also served as Chair of ECBA History Committee that compiled a book celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Essex County Bar Association. He also served as Special Editor of the Employment Law issue of New Jersey Lawyer, the Magazine published in April, He is a frequent lecturer on labor and employment, trade secrets and restrictive covenant matters, and is a New Jersey Court Approved Mediator. His many honors and awards include recognition in The Best Lawyers in America, Chambers USA, Top Lawyers in New Jersey by N.J. Monthly Magazine, SuperLawyers and numerous professional achievements. BarAdmissions: New Jersey, 1988 U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 1988 U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1991 U.S. Supreme Court, 2004 Professional Associations and Memberships: New Jersey State Bar Association, Trustee (2008-present) New Jersey State Bar Association, Labor and Employment Section Executive Committee (First Vice Chair 2009-present) New Jersey State Bar Association Civil Trial Bar Section, Member President, Essex County Bar Association ( Essex County Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Committee, Member and Pro Bono Committee Chair American Bar Association, Litigation and Labor and Employment Sections, Member Secretary, Labor and Employment Law Section, New Jersey State Bar Association President, NJSBA Sidney Reitman Labor and Employment Law American Inn of Court ( ) Editor-in-Chief, NJSBA Labor and Employment Law Quarterly ( ) Association of the Federal Bar of New Jersey, Member Morris County Bar Association, Member Honors and Awards: Certified Civil Trial Attorney Recognition, SuperLawyers Top 10 Lawyers in N.J., New Jersey Monthly Magazine (2007, 2009, 2010) Recognition, SuperLawyers Top 100 Lawyers in N.J., New Jersey Monthly Magazine ( )

10 Chambers USA "Leading Business Lawyers" in Labor and Employment Law, 2003 Present The Best Lawyers in America, Woodward White Recognition, New Jersey s Top Lawyers, New Jersey Monthly Magazine (March 2003) Top 40 Under 40, New Jersey Law Journal (2002) NJSBA Young Lawyer of the Year Professional Achievement Award (1998) Civil Trial Attorney Award, ECBA (2005) Martindale-Hubbell, AV rated

11 Curriculum Vitae DOMINIC V. CARUSO 1037 ROUTE 46 E CLIFTON, NJ (973) dcaruso@verizon.net Dominic V. Caruso attended Montclair State Collage where he majored in Political Science, with honors while attaining his BA degree ahead of schedule. He attended Seton Hall School of Law in Newark where he served as Editor of the Seton Hall Law Review. Upon graduation he was selected to clerk for the Assignment Judge of the Passaic vicinage (former United States Congressman Charles S. Joelson). He was admitted to practice law in New Jersey in 1979 and has been in private practice ever since. He began as an associate at Budd, Larner, Gross, Picillo & Rosenbaum in Newark, and later associated with Evans Hand Allabough and Amoresano in West Paterson, NJ. Since 1989 he has maintained his own firm specializing in civil litigation. The office is located in Clifton, NJ. He is also licensed to practice law in the State and Federal Courts of New Jersey, New York, the Western District of Pennsylvania and the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Mr. Caruso is a Past-President of the Passaic County Bar Association (2005); served as a Trustee of the New Jersey State Bar Association ( ); is the Chair of the NJSBA Judicial Administration Committee; a member of the NJSBA Judicial and Prosecutorial Appointments Committee; an Officer, Master and lecturer with the Justice Robert L. Clifford Inn of Court; a former member of the Supreme Court Model Jury Charge (Civil) Committee; a former Chairman of the Supreme Court Fee Arbitration Committee for Passaic County; and a New Jersey State approved Foreclosure Mediator. He has lectured for NJICLE on Civil Trial Practice and Procedure. In 2010 he was honored by his peers with the Professional Lawyer of the Year Award. In 2012 he received the first Distinguished Civil Practitioner of the Year awarded by the Passaic County Bar Association and has been consistently rated as one of New Jersey s Top Attorneys as published in New Jersey Monthly Magazine. Mr. Caruso has been certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Trial Attorney. This select group of attorneys specialize in civil trial practice and must be tested and approved by the Supreme Court as competent in the specialized field of civil litigation. Certification is reviewed by the Board on Attorney Certification and, if appropriate, renewed for five years. Less than.02 percent of the lawyers in New Jersey have been designated as Certified Trial Attorneys. Mr. Caruso was certified in 1986 and re-certified in 1993, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015.

12 WILLIAM H. MERGNER, JR., graduated from the Catholic University of America Magna Cum Laude in He received his Juris Doctor from the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William and Mary in He became associated with Leary Bride Tinker and Moran following graduation and has since become a partner in the firm, currently serving as co-managing partner. For the past thirty one years he has been involved in daily trial work, having tried in excess of two hundred jury trials to verdict in state and federal courts in New Jersey. He has successfully handled the defense through trial of construction site accidents, multi-party construction defect cases, environmental/toxic tort claims, products liability claims, professional liability claims including medical, legal, engineering, agents/brokers claims as well as complex general liability claims involving serious injury or death. He has handled a significant number of appeals before the New Jersey Appellate Division, the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and has numerous published (and unpublished) decisions. He regularly provides seminars to clients of the firm and attorneys in New Jersey regarding a wide range of issues ranging from contractual risk transfer, products liability law, as well as developments in insurance coverage law, and trial techniques, teaching an average six seminars per year over the last ten years. He is serving his second term as a Trustee of The New Jersey State Bar Association. He is past Chair of the Civil Trial Practice Section of the NJSBA; is a member of Supreme Court Committee on the Rules of Evidence, the Joint Supreme Court/NJSBA E-Courts Committee, The NJSBA Amicus Committee, and the Supreme Court Committee on Expediting Civil Actions. He is currently a member of the NJSBA s Insurance Defense Committee, and has been since it was formed, and is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation. He has been selected as a Super Lawyer by New Jersey Monthly Magazine every year since the award was initiated, and is AV Preeminent rated by Martindale Hubbell. New York Location 1540 Dean Street, Niskayuna, New York 12309

13 WILLIAM E. STAEHLE Basking Ridge, NJ (973) Bar Admissions: Admitted to Practice in New Jersey (1975 present) and New York ( ). Also admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the District of N.J. Professional Managing Counsel for Travelers Insurance Staff Counsel in New Jersey, 1985 present. Staff Counsel General Liability Product Line Lead, 2007 present. Claim Legal Trial Advocacy School, Executive Committee Member, Presenter, Mentor, and Judge, 2006 present. Founding Partner, Sweeney, Bozonelis, Staehle and Woodward, Attorneys, Chatham, N.J., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Newark, N.J., Education: JD, Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, N.J., BA, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., Selected Achievements, Career Achievement Award for Professional Excellence, N.J. Law Journal, Activities and Awards Career Achievement Joseph S. Stabnick Award, Travelers, Claim Legal, Chair, N.J. Supreme Court Board on Continuing Legal Education, 2011 present. Board Member, Chair, N.J. Supreme Court Board on Attorney Certification, Civil Committee Chair, Civil Committee Member, Member, District XIII Ethics Committee, 2010 present. Certified by the Supreme Court of N.J. as a Civil Trial Attorney in 1987 (7 yr.), recertified 1994 (7 yr.), re-certified 2001 (5yr.), re-certified 2006 (5 yr), re-certified 2011 (5 yr). Chair, Certified Attorneys Section, N.J. State Bar Association, Court-Appointed Arbitrator, Superior Court of N.J., Essex County, Lead Counsel for Respondent before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), eventually winning a writ of habeas corpus for the plaintiff/respondent. Lecturer, Legal Aspects of Advanced Trauma Life Support, University of Medicine and Dentistry of N.J., Commander, Bernardsville Memorial Post 7858 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Councilman, Mountain Lakes Borough Council, ; Chair/Vice-Chair, Mountain Lakes Planning Board, Military Experience: Captain (Company Commander and Deputy Provost Marshal), U.S. Army, Military Police Corps, Republic of South Vietnam, Lieutenant (Platoon Leader, Executive Officer and Jumpmaster), U.S. Army, Military Police Corps, 82 nd Airborne Division, Ft. Bragg, N.C.,