SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5632-14T3

JEFFREY S. FELD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 

THE CITY OF ORANGE TOWNSHIP,

DWIGHT MITCHELL, as the city's

Custodian of Government Records,

and THE CITY OF ORANGE

TOWNSHIP CITY COUNCIL,

Defendants-Respondents.

________________________________

Argued February 7, 2018 – Decided April 18, 2019

Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Suter.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-1969-10.

Jeffrey S. Feld, appellant, argued the cause pro se. 

Respondents have not filed a briefs.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FUENTES, P.J.A.D.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-5632-14T3

Plaintiff Jeffrey S. Feld appeals two orders of the Law Division denying 

his requests for attorney's fees and sanctions under the Open Public Records Act 

(OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. Specifically, plaintiff argues that, as an 

attorney admitted to practice in this State, he is entitled to recover fees for the 

professional services he performed in the prosecution of this case 

notwithstanding that he was acting on his own behalf as plaintiff. N.J.S.A. 

47:1A-6. Plaintiff also seeks the reversal of the trial court's order denying his 

application for the imposition of penalties against the custodian of records under 

N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11. We affirm.

On March 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a verified complaint and order to show 

cause against defendants, the City of Orange Township (City), the City's 

custodian of records Dwight Mitchell, and the City's governing council 

(Council). The complaint alleged numerous OPRA violations concerning access 

to the Council's agendas and other items. In an order entered on April 10, 2015, 

the Law Division denied in part defendants' summary judgment motion and 

ordered the custodian of records "to produce the 28 items appended as an exhibit 

. . . ." The court also denied plaintiff's application for an award of counsel fees 

under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 as a matter of judicial discretion.
3

A-5632-14T3

We start our analysis by reaffirming a well-settled principle of appellate 

jurisprudence: "appeals are taken from orders and judgments and not from 

opinions, oral decisions, informal written decisions, or reasons given for the 

ultimate conclusion." Hayes v. Delamotte, 231 N.J. 373, 387 (2018) (quoting 

Do-Wop Corp. v. City of Rahway, 168 N.J. 191, 199 (2001)). Thus, although 

we affirm the trial court's order denying plaintiff's application for counsel fees 

under OPRA, we disagree with the reasons expressed by the court in reaching 

this conclusion.

An award of counsel fees to a prevailing party under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 is 

mandatory as a vital part of the public policy underpinning the public's right of 

access to government records:

[u]nder the OPRA, it is the declared public policy of 

this State that "government records shall be readily 

accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by 

the citizens of this State." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. To obtain 

records that are not made available, "[a] person who is 

denied access to a government record by the custodian 

of the record . . . may . . . institute a proceeding to 

challenge the custodian's decision by filing an action in 

Superior Court." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. If the court 

determines that the custodian unjustifiably denied 

access to the record in question, he or she is entitled to 

a "reasonable attorney's fee." Ibid. Without that feeshifting provision, "the ordinary citizen would be 

waging a quixotic battle against a public entity vested 

with almost inexhaustible resources. By making the 

custodian of the government record responsible for the 
4

A-5632-14T3

payment of counsel fees to a prevailing requestor, the 

Legislature intended to even the fight." Courier News 

v. Hunterdon Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 378 N.J. Super. 

539, 546 (App. Div. 2005).

[New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium v. N.J. 

Dep't of Corr., 185 N.J. 137, 153 (2005).]

However, it is equally well-settled that an attorney who represents himself 

or herself is not entitled to recover counsel fees. Segal v. Lynch, 211 N.J. 230, 

258-64 (2012). This bar applies even in cases involving fee-shifting statutes. 

Plaintiff's remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.