Skip to Content


Charles Kellett handles a broad range of commercial litigation matters. His practice centers around professional liability matters involving attorneys, accountants, insurance producers, architects and engineers at the state and federal level. Mr. Kellett also regularly represents business entities in all manner of civil litigation including general liability matters, employment practices litigation, shareholder disputes and contractual litigation.

Mr. Kellett clerked for the Honorable William A. Daniel, J.S.C., New Jersey Superior Court, Union Vicinage from 2009 to 2010.


  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • U.S. District Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals
    • District of New Jersey
    • Southern District of New York
    • Second Circuit
    • Third Circuit


  • Seton Hall University School of Law – J.D.
  • University of Michigan – B.A.

Professional Memberships

  • Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
  • Member – Township of Cranford, Cannabis Legislation Working Group
  • Member – Supreme Court of New Jersey, District Ethics Committee – District XII (Union County)

Community Service

  • Rebuilding Together Jersey City, Inc. Volunteer
  • Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation

Reported Decisions

  • Amerestate Holdings, LLC v. CBRE, Inc., 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2025 (App. Div. Sep. 4, 2018) motion for leave to appeal denied 236 N.J. 258 (2019) – Successfully argued before the Appellate Division that client was entitled to key discovery in in a multi-million dollar commercial real estate litigation under implicit and explicit waiver principles to the attorney-client privilege doctrine.
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of defendant accountant on claims of fraud and professional negligence relating to purported failure to disclose to a corporate shareholder non-client the existence and valuation of loans made by primary shareholder to the corporation – a client of the accountant’s. After oral argument, the court held that defendant accountant do not owe any such duty to a non-client simply due to his status as a shareholder of a corporate client and that any claims that the accountant made affirmative misrepresentations failed on their face in light of the plaintiff’s testimony.
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of defendant law firm on claim of fraud by former client. Former client claimed that statements made by the firm in connection with their retention regarding ability to present case despite the plaintiff’s failure to file an affidavit of merit within the normal statutory timeframe amounted to actionable fraud. After oral argument, the court held that plaintiff’s allegations, even if true, would not support a claim for fraud as the purportedly fraudulent statements merely amounted to legal opinion which would not have been unreasonable under the circumstances
  • Veryzer v. Am. Int’l Life Assur. Co. of New York, 13-262-CV, 2013 WL 5733327 (2d Cir. 2013) – Obtained summary judgment on behalf of insurance company in federal court arising out of plaintiff’s multi-million dollar claim for disability benefits. Successfully argued before the court that plaintiff’s submissions regarding his alleged mercury poisoning offered no objective evidence that he suffered from demonstrable brain damage sufficient to avoid the application of the two-year mental health benefits limit. Subsequently, successfully briefed matter before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of the case.
  • Obtained dismissal in matter venued in the United States District Court for the State of New Jersey on behalf of insurance producer client in a multi-million dollar malpractice claim. Successfully argued before the court that plaintiffs’ claims fell under the purview of the Affidavit of Merit Statute and that the failure to timely file an affidavit of merit as to the individual insurance producer warranted dismissal of claims against both the individual insurance producer as well as the insurance producer’s corporate entity based upon theory of vicarious liability.
  • Obtained dismissal in New Jersey state court of multi-million dollar legal malpractice matter at the pleading stage. Successfully argued before the court that individual plaintiff did not have standing to assert claim for legal malpractice against client-attorney whose representation was limited to landlord-tenant matter where the only named defendant was individual plaintiff’s fictitious business entity. Additionally obtained dismissal on grounds that failure to raise fraud claim on individual plaintiff’s behalf in the landlord-tenant matter against the landlord did not preclude individual plaintiff from later asserting such claim under the entire controversy doctrine.
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of accounting firm in New Jersey state court on plaintiff’s $6 million professional negligence claim arising out of the firm’s alleged failure to detect plaintiff’s president’s ongoing fraud against the company. Successfully argued before the court that accounting firm’s disclosure of the fraud in 2004 to plaintiff’s CEO triggered the statute of limitations and that plaintiff’s claim, asserted in 2011 was beyond NJ’s six-year statute of limitations.
  • Estate of Picon v. FBR Grp., A-2305-12T3, 2013 WL 5610862 (App. Div. 2013) – Obtained summary judgment in New Jersey state court on behalf of insurance producer client in $5 million professional negligence claim arising out of plaintiffs’ sale of two insurance policies on the life settlement market. Successfully argued to the court that plaintiffs’ execution of a release at the time of the sale for “amounts arising out of the sale of the policies” applied to plaintiffs’ allegations that the insurance producer negligently advised plaintiffs to sell the subject policies. Subsequently, successfully briefed matter before the Appellate Division, which affirmed the dismissal of the case.
  • AIS Risk Consultants, Inc. v. Moffett, A-3333-10T1, 2011 WL 5137836 (App. Div. 2011) – Successfully upheld partial dismissal of claims against client actuary based upon counterclaimant/third-party-plaintiff’s lack of standing. Appellate Division held that the dismissed claim asserted against the actuary was derivative in nature, as the counterclaimant/third-party-plaintiff was only harmed in that it lost income because of the resulting insolvency of the actuary’s direct client. The remaining direct claims were reversed and remande.


  • New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Stars (2015 – 2021)
    This award is conferred by SuperLawyers, a part of Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found at
    No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Super Lawyers Martindale Hubbel AV Preeminent Law 360