A New Jersey court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Lento Law Group, PC against its former client, Carly Hendrickson, who left a negative review about the firm on the Better Business Bureau (BBB) website. The court's decision, issued on June 15, 2026, highlights the importance of free speech protections under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), which aims to prevent lawsuits that stifle public discourse.
The case, Lento Law Group, PC v. Carly Hendrickson, Docket No. A-3541-23, centers around Hendrickson's comments regarding the law firm's non-refundable retainer policy. The court's ruling not only dismisses the law firm's claims but also awards attorney's fees to Hendrickson, emphasizing the need to protect individuals from meritless lawsuits intended to chill free speech.
This ruling is significant as it underscores the balance between protecting individuals' rights to express their opinions and the legal recourse available to businesses against potentially damaging statements. It serves as a reminder of the evolving legal landscape surrounding defamation and free speech in the digital age.
Background
Lento Law Group, PC, a law firm based in New Jersey, filed a lawsuit against Carly Hendrickson after she posted a negative review on the BBB website. Hendrickson had paid a $5,000 retainer to Lento Law for legal representation in a matter that was quickly settled. Following the settlement, she requested a partial refund of her retainer, which the firm denied, citing their non-refundable fee policy.
In her review, Hendrickson expressed dissatisfaction with the firm's practices, stating that other law firms typically return unused retainer fees, especially when cases are settled quickly. Lento Law responded by suing Hendrickson for defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, arguing that her comments were false and damaging to their reputation.
Hendrickson countered the lawsuit by filing an order to show cause, asserting that her review was protected under UPEPA, which allows individuals to seek dismissal of lawsuits aimed at suppressing free speech. The motion judge agreed, leading to the dismissal of Lento Law's claims.
The Ruling
The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, led by Chief Judge Sumners, ruled in favor of Hendrickson, affirming the motion judge's decision to dismiss Lento Law's defamation claim. The court found that Hendrickson's comments were a matter of public concern and constituted protected free speech under UPEPA.
The court ruled, "Hendrickson's BBB post regarding Lento Law's retainer policy was akin to expressing her constitutionally protected free speech rights in 'the public square.'"
The court emphasized that Lento Law failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation, as Hendrickson's statements were deemed to be opinions rather than factual assertions. The judge noted that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would have a chilling effect on free speech, which contradicts the purpose of UPEPA.
Furthermore, the court awarded Hendrickson attorney's fees totaling $24,198 and court costs of $199.83, reaffirming the dismissal of Lento Law's complaint with prejudice.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for both consumers and businesses. It reinforces the protections afforded to individuals expressing their opinions about services and products, particularly in the context of online reviews. The decision illustrates the court's commitment to upholding free speech rights and discouraging the use of litigation as a tool to silence criticism.
The case also highlights the importance of UPEPA in New Jersey, which aims to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). By dismissing Lento Law's claims, the court has set a precedent that may deter similar lawsuits in the future, encouraging individuals to share their experiences without fear of legal repercussions.
What's Next
While Lento Law has the option to appeal the court's decision, the ruling currently stands as a significant victory for Hendrickson and a reaffirmation of free speech protections under UPEPA. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling, but its implications may influence future defamation claims involving online reviews.