SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3382-21 

THE LAW OFFICE OF 

RAJEH A. SAADEH, LLC, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

REBBECCA GRAU, 

 Defendant-Respondent. 

__________________________

Argued October 2, 2023 – Decided December 15, 2023 

Before Judges DeAlmeida and Bishop-Thompson. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Somerset County, Docket No. 

DC-004134-21.

Lindsay Alexandra McKillop argued the cause for 

appellant (The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC, 

attorneys; Rajeh A. Saadeh and Lindsay Alexandra 

McKillop, on the brief). 

Rebbecca Grau, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-3382-21

 Plaintiff The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC (Saadeh, LLC) appeals 

from the June 7, 2022 judgment of the Special Civil Part to the extent it denied 

Saadeh, LLC's application for the costs of collection and attorney's fees incurred 

to collect fees for legal services. We reverse the portion of the judgment under 

appeal and remand for further proceedings. 

I.

 The material facts are not in dispute. In February 2021, defendant 

Rebbecca Grau signed a retainer agreement hiring Saadeh, LLC to represent her 

in a divorce action. The fees to be charged Grau for Saadeh, LLC's services are 

explained in the agreement. The agreement also details the steps Saadeh, LLC 

may take to collect unpaid fees and provides: "Should it be necessary to utilize 

the legal process to collect any amount outstanding, I will be entitled to recover 

the costs of collection, including for professional time expended by attorneys in 

and outside The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, L.L.C., and reasonable 

expenses, including but not limited to court, service and execution costs."1

1

 "I" in this provision apparently refers to Rajeh A. Saadeh, who we surmise is 

a principal of Saadeh, LLC. Our review of the record reveals that the parties 

have operated with the understanding that the agreement permits Saadeh, LLC 

to recover the costs of collection and attorney's fees incurred for unpaid fees. 
3 A-3382-21

 In June 2021, Saadeh, LLC and Grau exchanged communications 

regarding outstanding fees for the firm's services. At that time, Saadeh, LLC 

was expecting a payment from the Victims of Crime Compensation Office 

(VCCO) for a portion, but not all, of Grau's outstanding balance. As of August 

2021, the VCCO payment had not been received and the balance remained 

outstanding. As a result, on August 16, 2021, Saadeh, LLC moved to be relieved 

as Grau's counsel in the divorce action. 

Shortly after the motion was filed, Grau made a number of payments 

toward her outstanding balance because an employee of the firm told her that if 

she brought her balance below $3,000, the firm would be open to instituting a 

payment plan for the remaining fees. In addition, although there was some 

confusion regarding the firm's address, which had changed due to a relocation, 

by September 1, 2021, Saadeh, LLC received the VCCO payment. After the 

VCCO payment was applied to Grau's unpaid balance, $2,903.90 remained 

outstanding. 

The firm twice requested that its motion be adjourned to permit the parties 

to come to an agreement with respect to the payment of Grau's outstanding 

balance. During this time, Grau moved to Indiana. She testified that her ability 
4 A-3382-21

to arrange a payment plan for the outstanding balance was hindered because the 

Saadeh, LLC attorney who represented her was on vacation. 

On September 29, 2021, the trial court in which Grau's divorce action was 

pending entered an order relieving Saadeh, LLC as her counsel. 

 By October 2021, Grau owed the firm $2,965.85 because $61.95 in costs 

were added to her outstanding balance pursuant to a provision of the retainer 

agreement. On October 5, 2021, Saadeh, LLC sent Grau a fee arbitration preaction notice stating that she had outstanding invoices for legal services in the 

amount of $2,965.85. The notice informed Grau that she had the right to pursue 

fee arbitration within thirty days of receipt. Grau did not seek fee arbitration.2

 On or about December 13, 2021, Saadeh, LLC filed a complaint in the 

Special Civil Part seeking a judgment for the outstanding fees, along with 

interest, costs of suit, costs of collection and attorney's fees. 

 Grau and the Saadeh, LLC attorney who represented her in the divorce 

action testified at trial. Grau admitted that she owed the firm $2,903.90, but 

denied owing the $61.95 added to her final bill or any additional collection costs 

or attorney's fees the firm might seek. She testified that she had not made 

2

 The trial court found Grau's claim that she did not receive the fee arbitration 

notice at her Indiana address within the thirty-day period to lack credibility. 
5 A-3382-21

payments to Saadeh, LLC after the firm was relieved as her counsel because she 

believed that if she did so she would have been admitting liability to $2,965.85 

and additional costs and fees. She also testified that she was at times unclear as 

to the exact amount she owed because the firm mailed paid invoices, along with 

outstanding invoices, to her on a monthly basis. The attorney testified with 

respect to the services she provided to Grau for which the firm was not 

compensated. In its summation, Saadeh, LLC requested, if it prevailed, an 

opportunity to submit a certification of collections costs and services for the 

award of attorney's fees. 

On June 7, 2022, the trial court issued an oral opinion. The court found 

that all of the legal services Saadeh, LLC provided to Grau were actually 

performed and reasonable. In addition, the court found that Saadeh, LLC had 

established that the fees it charged Grau were reasonable and that she was 

responsible to pay those fees pursuant to the retainer agreement. The court, 

therefore, concluded that Grau owed Saadeh, LLC $2,965.85. 

With respect to the firm's demand for costs of collection and attorney's 

fees, the court found that 

there were issues with respect to billing in the plaintiff's 

firm and it sounds like one hand didn't know what the 

other hand was doing, and while she's being told we're 

going to work with you, she's getting inconsistent 
6 A-3382-21

messages from [the] billing department and statements 

made in the motion to be relieved as counsel. And her 

attorney is not communicating with her because her 

attorney is on vacation. 

. . . . 

So, I believe her uncontroverted statement that she . . . 

from [her attorney heard] you do your best and we are 

going to try to work with you. Get your outstanding 

balance under $3,000. But at the same time that's 

happening, it's uncontroverted she's getting an e-mail 

from a secretary, pay us in full or we will be . . . relieved 

as counsel. She arranges for a sizeable check to be sent 

to the firm because she's a victim of crime . . . and the 

firm has moved without telling her, which delays the 

check and that is rather unprofessional . . . . And she 

gave uncontroverted testimony of problems with the 

billing department. . . . [S]he keeps getting paid 

invoices, invoices where she's paid in full are sent to 

her again and again, even after this suit has been filed. 

She has to go through individual invoices to try to 

figure out what is actually owed, and so her testimony 

about confusing billing practices and inconsistent 

statement from different members of the plaintiff firm, 

are believed by this [c]ourt. 

. . . . 

In this case, there should not have been a lawsuit. There 

is a series of poor business practices by the plaintiff that 

resulted in the necessity of the lawsuit and a misuse of 

time energy resources. 

Noting that a prevailing party is entitled only to reasonable attorney's fees, the 

court concluded that "although the retainer agreement provides for an attorney's 
7 A-3382-21

fee, [it was] not awarding any attorney's fees. It's the plaintiff firm's own 

mistakes that caused the need for the litigation." 

A June 7, 2022 judgment memorializes the court's decision awarding 

Saadeh, LLC $2,965.85 in fees under the contract, but denying the firm's request 

for collections costs and attorney's fees. 

 This appeal follows. In its brief, Saadeh, LLC argues that it has a 

contractual right to reasonable collection costs and attorney's fees incurred in 

collecting Grau's outstanding balance for services provided pursuant to the 

retainer agreement. The firm argues that the trial court erred when it concluded 

that an award of collection costs and attorney's fees would be unreasonable 

because the firm's billing practices and communications with Grau resulted in 

unnecessary litigation. 

II. 

 We are guided in our analysis of Saadeh, LLC's arguments by our holding 

in Hrycak v. Kiernan, 367 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 2004). In that matter, 

Hrycak, an attorney, represented Kiernan in a matter before the Chancery 

Division. Id. at 238-39. The parties' retainer agreement provided that should 

Hrycak 

bring suit against [Kiernan] for fees due under this 

agreement, and after the requisite pre-action notice 
8 A-3382-21

required by Rules Governing the Courts of New Jersey, 

[Kiernan] shall be responsible for all fees and 

attorney['s] fees with a minimum of $450.00 attorney's 

fees for the filing of same. 

[Id. at 239 (third alteration in original).] 

 

 After Hrycak sent Kiernan a bill for services rendered, Kiernan paid only 

a portion of the amount due, claiming Hrycak guaranteed there would be a cap 

on the cost of his services. Ibid. The dispute was brought before a fee arbitration 

committee, which determined what fee would be reasonable for Hrycak's 

service. Ibid. The arbitration determination resulted in an outstanding unpaid 

balance of $2,231.57 owed by Kiernan. Ibid. Kiernan did not appeal the 

arbitration determination, but also did not pay the amount due within thirty days. 

Ibid. 

 Hrycak thereafter filed a complaint in the Law Division seeking to reduce 

the arbitration determination to a judgment against Kiernan, and for the award 

of $450 in attorney's fees in accord with the parties' retainer agreement. Ibid. 

The application was accompanied by a detailed account of the work Hrycak 

performed in filing the complaint. Ibid. The trial court entered judgment in the 

amount of the arbitration determination but denied the request for attorney's 

fees. Ibid.
9 A-3382-21

 We reversed. We noted that agreements between attorneys and their 

clients generally are enforceable as long as they are fair and reasonable. Id. at 

240. In addition, we observed that the court rules do not prohibit the award of 

attorney's fees that are provided for in the parties' retainer agreement. Ibid. We 

held: 

[i]n accordance with these authorities, we are not 

presented with any reasons why Hrycak should be 

denied fees incurred in collecting an arbitration award. 

Subject to review of reasonableness by the court, the 

collection fee with a minimum of $450 was based upon 

the express terms of the retainer agreement. 

[Ibid.] 

 We noted that "the retainer [does not] penalize[] the client for a fixed 

percentage of the fees owed if the attorney is forced to file suit to collect." Ibid. 

(citing Gruber & Colabella, P.A. v. Erickson, 345 N.J. Super. 248 (Law Div. 

2001) (holding unenforceable a provision in a retainer which added one-third of 

the outstanding legal fees to the client's bill if the attorney is forced to collect)). 

"Under those agreements," we noted, "there is the potential for an attorney to 

receive an unreasonable fee if little work was necessary to enforce the additional 

fee claim." Ibid. We continued, 

[a]n arbitration committee has already determined the 

reasonable value of Hrycak's services and that he was 

owed money. After arbitration, when Kiernan still 
10 A-3382-21

refused to honor his obligation, Hrycak was forced [to] 

take the matter to the Law Division to perfect his rights. 

For Hrycak's reasonable time and effort in seeking his 

fee, especially where the balance awarded was 

unjustifiably withheld, we see no reason why he should 

be denied compensation for additional work required in 

enforcing the award as covered by the retainer 

agreement. 

[Id. at 241.] 

 We see no reason to depart from the holding in Hrycak. Grau executed a 

retainer agreement providing that she would be responsible for the costs of 

collection and a reasonable attorney's fee in the event Saadeh, LLC was forced 

to take legal action to collect unpaid fees. This is precisely what transpired here. 

 Grau concedes that she did not pay for all of the legal services she received 

from Saadeh, LLC. She did not cross-appeal from the portion of the June 7, 

2022 judgment awarding Saadeh, LLC $2,965.85 in unpaid fees incurred under 

the retainer agreement. Saadeh, LLC was compelled to file an action in the 

Special Civil Part to obtain a judgment to collect those fees from Grau. 

 We have carefully reviewed the record and find no support for the trial 

court's conclusion that an award of collection costs and attorney's fees would be 

unreasonable because Saadeh, LLC's business practices resulted in unnecessary 

litigation against Grau. The trial court's decision was based on four findings: 

(1) at times, Grau was unsure of the exact amount she owed the firm because 
11 A-3382-21

she received copies of invoices that had been paid; (2) the VCCO payment on 

behalf of Grau was delayed because Saadeh, LLC relocated its office without 

informing Grau; (3) an employee of Saadeh, LLC informed Grau that the firm 

would consider an installment payment plan if she brought her outstanding 

balance below $3,000; and (4) she was hindered in obtaining an installment 

payment plan because her attorney was on vacation. 

 While the record contains evidence supporting each of these findings, 

nothing in the record supports the conclusion that any of these facts, individually 

or collectively, resulted in Saadeh, LLC unnecessarily filing an action to collect 

Grau's outstanding balance under the retainer agreement. It is undisputed that 

as of October 5, 2021, Saadeh, LLC had received the VCCO payment, which 

covered part, but not all, of Grau's outstanding balance, and the firm had issued 

its final invoice indicating that Grau owed Saadeh, LLC $2,965.85. 

On October 5, 2021, prior to filing its complaint, the firm sent Grau a fee 

arbitration notice indicating that she owed the firm $2,965.85 and had a right to 

initiate fee arbitration within thirty days. The trial court found that Grau 

received that notice on October 9, 2021. Grau did not seek fee arbitration. Nor 

did she pay the outstanding balance or any portion of the balance. There is no 

evidence in the record that Grau took any meaningful steps to pay her debt to 
12 A-3382-21

Saadeh, LLC or to negotiate a payment plan with the firm following her receipt 

of the fee arbitration notice. 

Saadeh, LLC did not file its complaint until December 13, 2021, more 

than two months after it sent Grau the fee arbitration notice stating the final 

outstanding balance of $2,965.85. The trial court did not explain why it was 

unnecessary for Saadeh, LLC to file its complaint after the VCCO payment had 

been received, Grau's final outstanding balance had been determined with 

precision, and Grau had been given more than two months to pay her outstanding 

fees. We understand the trial court's conclusion that miscommunication 

between Saadeh, LLC and Grau may have resulted in confusion with respect to 

the Grau's outstanding balance, the delivery of the VCCO payment, and the 

availability of an installment payment plan. It is, however, clearly established 

in the record that as of October 5, 2021, Grau's outstanding balance was 

$2,965.85, she was promptly notified that she owed the firm that amount, and 

she did not pay any or all of that balance for two months, resulting in the firm 

filing a complaint against her in the Special Civil Part. We see nothing 

unreasonable in a law firm filing suit to collect fees under a retainer agreement 

in these circumstances. We are, therefore, constrained to reverse the trial court's 

denial of Saadeh, LLC's application for collection costs and attorney's fees. 
13 A-3382-21

 The June 7, 2022 judgment is reversed to the extent that it denied Saadeh, 

LLC's application for collection costs and reasonable attorney's fees. The matter 

is remanded for the entry of an order awarding collection costs and reasonable 

attorney's fees incurred by Saadeh, LLC to collect Grau's unpaid fees under the 

retainer agreement. We leave to the trial court in the first instance to review a 

certification of costs and services to be submitted by Saadeh, LLC on remand 

and determine what amounts constitute reasonable collection costs and 

attorney's fees. We do not retain jurisdiction.