Skip to main content
Bennett J. Wasserman

Bennett Wasserman’s Legal Cases

6 total

  • In re Opinion 39 of the Committee on Attorney Advertising, __N.J.__ , 961 A.2d 722 (NJ, 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Ethics & Professional Responsibility
    Date:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Outcome:
    Success
    Description:
    (Attorney of Record-co-counsel for petitioners and intervenor/petitioners) wherein the N.J. Supreme Court declared 2 of its own Rules of Professional Conduct relating to attorney advertising unconstitutional as violative of commercial free speech.
  • Carbis Sales, Inc. et al v. Eisenberg, et al., 397 N.J. Super. 64, 935 A.2d 1236 (App. Div., 2007)

    Practice Area:
    Ethics & Professional Responsibility
    Date:
    Apr 01, 2009
    Outcome:
    Success.
    Description:
    Expert witness in legal malpractice case-liability of designated defense counsel to his insurance carrier.
  • Fiorentino v. Rapoport

    Practice Area:
    Ethics & Professional Responsibility
    Outcome:
    Success.
    Description:
    Fiorentino v. Frank Rapoport, Saul Ewing, et. al,(negligence, contract and fiduciary duties of lawyer in commercial transaction) (Expert witness).
  • Huber v. Watson

    Practice Area:
    Ethics & Professional Responsibility
    Outcome:
    Success.
    Description:
    Huber v. Watson, 568 N.W.2d 787 (Sup. Ct. of Iowa, 1997) (litigation malpractice, failure to name appropriate parties in underlying asbestos suit) (Expert witness).
  • Vahila v. Hall

    Practice Area:
    Ethics & Professional Responsibility
    Date:
    Mar 03, 1997
    Outcome:
    Success
    Description:
    Vahila et. al. v. Charles D. Hall, III, et. al. 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 647 NE2d 1164 (1997) (Sup. Ct. of Ohio). (proving the case within a case in underlying criminal defense case with expert witness) (Expert witness).
  • Profit Sharing Trust v. Lampf, Lipkind

    Practice Area:
    Ethics & Professional Responsibility
    Date:
    Mar 01, 1993
    Outcome:
    Success
    Description:
    Expert witness fiduciary duty of law firm to refrain from prohibited transactions with client under RPC 1.8