A recent appellate decision has confirmed that a former managing attorney and her new law practice will not face sanctions after being accused by her previous employer of improper conduct, including soliciting clients and misusing confidential information. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division issued its opinion on March 11, 2026, following an appeal filed by Sung H. Jang and SJ Law against the Law Offices of Gary S. Park, PC.
The appeal stemmed from a February 14, 2025 order by the Law Division in Bergen County, which denied the defendants’ motion for sanctions against the plaintiff. The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s most recent lawsuit was frivolous and pursued in bad faith after a similar complaint had already been dismissed with prejudice.
According to court documents, Sung H. Jang previously worked as an associate and later as managing attorney at the plaintiff’s law firm before leaving in July 2020 to start her own practice. After her departure, twenty-two clients transferred their representation to Jang’s new firm. In July 2021, the plaintiff initiated legal action against Jang and SJ Law, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty as well as tortious interference with client contracts. The complaint claimed that Jang engaged in improper conduct prior to leaving the firm by soliciting clients and diverting business opportunities in which the plaintiff had invested significant resources.
The plaintiff further alleged that Jang removed or copied confidential materials from the firm and made misleading statements to clients regarding the firm’s status, reputation, and ongoing cases. It was also claimed that she used firm resources without authorization to represent clients and entered into agreements with external vendors without consent from her former employer.
In August 2021, Jang moved to dismiss these claims under Rule 4:6-2(e), but this motion was denied by the trial court. A subsequent request for leave to appeal was also denied by the Appellate Division. Later that year, the plaintiff amended its complaint to include additional claims for fraud and deceit, quantum meruit (a claim for payment for services rendered), and unjust enrichment. In January 2022, another motion to dismiss was filed by defendants; this time it went unopposed by the plaintiff and resulted in dismissal with prejudice.
Despite this outcome, in June 2024, the plaintiff filed a new complaint raising issues such as breach of contract, conversion (wrongful possession or use of property), unjust enrichment, breach of good faith and fair dealing, along with a request for punitive damages. Defendants responded in August 2024 with a notice accusing plaintiff of frivolous litigation under Rule 1:4-8 due to similarities with previously dismissed claims and requested withdrawal within twenty-eight days as provided under court rules.
Plaintiff did not withdraw its complaint during this period. In September 2024, defendants moved again to dismiss based on res judicata (the principle barring re-litigation of settled matters) and the entire controversy doctrine. This motion was granted by another judge who agreed that all claims were precluded due to earlier proceedings.
Following dismissal of the second lawsuit, defendants sought counsel fees under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 on grounds that filing repeated complaints constituted bad faith litigation deserving sanctions. However, in February 2025, their request was denied by the trial court which stated: “[T]he [c]lourt cannot conclude that [ ] plaintiff displayed the ‘requisite bad faith or knowledge of lack of well-groundedness’ in pursuing his claim… Simply because the [2024] complaint was dismissed on basis of entire controversy doctrine and res judicata… does not suffice to establish [the] losing party’s bad faith.”
On appeal from this denial of sanctions, defendants argued that refiling similar claims after dismissal with prejudice should be deemed objectively unreasonable conduct warranting penalties under both Rule 1:4-8 (sanctions for frivolous litigation) and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 (attorney fee statute). The appellate panel disagreed after reviewing standards governing such awards—namely that sanctions are reserved only for cases where no rational argument can be advanced or when pleadings are completely untenable—and found no abuse of discretion by the lower court.
The appellate opinion emphasized established principles stating “Sanctions are not to be issued lightly; they are reserved for particular instances where a party’s pleading is found to be ‘completely untenable,’ or where ‘no rational argument can be advanced in its support.'” The panel concluded there was no evidence showing bad faith or intent solely to harass or delay on part of plaintiff despite dismissal based on procedural grounds.
Attorneys involved included Matthew Jeon representing Sung H. Jang and SJ Law; Albert H. Wunsch III represented Law Offices of Gary S. Park PC alongside Jeffrey Zajac according to briefs submitted before Judges Currier and Jablonski under case ID A-2254-24.
Source: A225424_Law_Offices_of_Gary_S_Park_PC_v_Jang_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
