[brief] c)  Plaintiff Cannot Establish Extraordinary Circumstances  Next, Plaintiff asserts that “extraordinary circumstances” exist in this case to excuse the non-compliance with the statute, citing to the same arguments that she asserted under the fifth element of the substantial compliance test, including the vacated default judgment, the issues with the Form C Interrogatories, and the lack of a Ferreira conference.  For the same reasons these reasons did not amount to a reasonable explanation under the substantial compliance doctrine, these same arguments do not establish extraordinary circumstances.  Further, Plaintiff’s concession that her counsel failed to comply with the statute because he lost track of the timing for filing the affidavit is key, because it is well-established law that “extraordinary circumstances” is not present when attorney neglect or inattentiveness is the cause of the failure to comply with the statute.  Ferreira, 178 N.J. at 153 (“[C]ounsel’s carelessness in misfiling defendant's answer and failing to calendar this matter does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance”); Palanque v. Lambert-Woolley, 168 N.J. 398, 405 (2001) (“[A]ttorney inadvertence will not support the extraordinary circumstances standard…”); Medina v. Pitta, 442 N.J. Super. 1, 21–22 (App. Div. 2015) (“[C]arelessness, lack of circumspection, or lack of diligence on the part of counsel are not extraordinary circumstances which will excuse missing a filing deadline. ”); Burns v. Belafsky, 326 N.J. Super. 462, 470 (App. Div. 1999), aff’d, 166 N.J. 466 (2001) (“Given the fact that the failure here to comply with the statutory requirements was the result of lack of diligence on the part of counsel, plaintiffs cannot rely on the existence of extraordinary circumstances to avoid the statutory requirements. ”); Hyman Zamft & Manard, L.L.C. v. Cornell, 309 N.J. Super. 586, 593 (App. Div. 1998).  Since the failure to produce an Affidavit of Merit was the result of the kind of carelessness, lack of diligence and/or inadvertence which the court of New Jersey have routinely rejected as comprising extraordinary circumstances, Plaintiff’s argument should be rejected.  Moreover, in making this argument, Plaintiff relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in A.T., supra, to argue that extraordinary circumstances exist.  However, in A.T., an “inexperienced practitioner became confused by timelines,” failed to file a timely affidavit, and the Judiciary failed to schedule a Ferreira conference.  A.T., 231 N.J. at 349.  The A.T. Court found that those circumstances, combined, justified a finding of extraordinary circumstances.  Id.  This case differs on both of the key factors relied upon by the A.T. Court.  First, Plaintiff’s attorney is not an “inexperienced practitioner. ”  Id.  Rather, [...] has been a member of the New Jersey bar since 1987, which obviously includes the entirety of the time the Affidvait of Merit statute has been the law of New Jersey.  Further, the failure to schedule a Ferreira conference in this case was not the fault of the Judiciary, but of the Plaintiff for wrongfully indicating that this was not a malpractice case, and by not following up when notified that the case was set down as a Track II case with 300 days of discovery.  As such, there is no extraordinary circumstances present here, and [...]’s decision should be affirmed.