Jonathan H. Lomurro, Esq. LL.M. - The Lawyer

Jonathan H. Lomurro, Esq. LL.M. has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey as a Certified Civil Trial Attorney.​ The process involves a peer review by practicing judges, attorney adversaries, and recommendations. Further, it requires a number of trial days, cases handled, and a written examination.

Jonathan H. Lomurro, Esq. LL.M. has been appointed to serve as the chair of the Medical Malpractice Special Committee for the New Jersey State Bar Association. The purpose of the organization is to maintain the honor and dignity of the profession of the law to cultivate social relations among its members to suggest and urge reforms in the laws and to aid in the administration of justice. The Medical Malpractice Special Committee monitors case law and legislative developments in medical malpractice law and disseminates information to Association members.

Jonathan holds his LL.M. from Temple University Beasley School of law. An LL.M. is a Masters of Law degree which is obtained after one has achieved their J.D. (juris doctorate). Temple's trail advocacy program has been rated one of the top three trial advocacy programs in the United States for the past 20 years. The curriculum integrates the development of theory and theme, persuasive storytelling, extemporaneous speech and effective use of technology in the courtroom.

Mr. Lomurro has published several books on the practice of law. Further, he has authored numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals regarding the practice of law. Please click the icon above if you wish to learn more about his legal publications.

Jonathan H. Lomurro, Esq. LL.M. has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey as a Certified Civil Trial Attorney.​ The process involves a peer review by practicing judges, attorney adversaries, and recommendations. Further, it requires a number of trial days, cases handled, and a written examination.

President (2013-2017) of Haydn Proctor Inn of Court. The American Inns of Court is an association of lawyers, judges, and other legal professionals from all levels and backgrounds who share a passion for professional excellence. Through regular meetings, members are able to build and strengthen professional relationships discuss fundamental concerns about professionalism and pressing legal issues of the day share experiences and advice exhort the utmost passion and dedication for the law provide mentoring opportunities and advance the highest levels of integrity, ethics, and civility.

Jonathan is on the leadership ladder for the New Jersey Association for Justice (NJAJ). NJAJ is dedicated to protecting New Jersey’s families by working to preserve and strengthen the laws for safer products and workplaces, a cleaner environment and quality health care. It is the organization that speaks for the injured and fights for the rights of the victims.

AV Preeminent® is a registered certification mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings fall into two categories – legal ability and general practice standards.

Super Lawyer and Super Lawyer Rising Star Listings are not offered for a price. They are published by Thomson Reuters Co. Super Lawyer Rising Star recognition begins with peer nominations. Next, evaluations are combined with third-party research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

The AVVO rating is calculated using a mathematical mode. The Avvo Rating cannot be bought. They calculate the rating based on public data they have collected on each attorney and the information the attorney has provided in their profile. The rating is continually reviewed and updated. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Mr. Lomurro served on the American Bar Association's House of Delegates as an At-Large representative for the State of New Jersey. The American Bar Association aims to serve equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession.

Mr. Lomurro serves on the ASTM committee E31 on Healthcare Informatics. He assisted in the creation and drafting of ASTM E2147-18's Standard Specification for Audit and Disclosure Logs for Use in Health Information Systems. ASTM Committee E31 on Healthcare Informatics develops standards related to the architecture, content, storage, security, confidentiality, functionality, and communication of information used within healthcare and healthcare decision making, including patient-specific information and knowledge. Established in 1970, E31 meets semi-annually as a committee in May and November.

Jonathan travels around the country presenting on different topics relating to the practice of law. He has spoken for many different bar associations, nursing associations, legal educational groups, and has lectured privately for different law firms. Please click the icon above if you wish to learn more about his presentations.

Jonathan was selected by the New Jersey State Bar Association YLD as the 2011 Young Lawyer of the Year.

Mr. Lomurro was awarded the 2009 professional achievement award by the New Jersey State Bar Association YLD

The New Jersey Law Journal awarded Mr. Lomurro the New Leaders of the Bar recognition in 2014.

Jonathan acted as amicus attorney in the matter to protect the interests of injured plaintiffs through NJAJ. The Court held that the enhanced requirements of section 41 governing the qualifications of persons permitted to submit an affidavit of merit, or to provide expert testimony against or in support of a physician, in a medical malpractice action apply only in medical malpractice actions. In all other actions against a licensed professional, including a dentist, section 27 prescribes the qualifications of the person who may submit an affidavit of merit against a licensed professional who is alleged to have acted negligently. The affiant must hold an appropriate license and must demonstrate particular expertise in the general area or specialty involved in the action, but he or she is not required to possess credentials equivalent to those of the licensed professional defendant. Neither the plain language nor the purpose and history of the AOM statute or Patients First Act support importation of the like-credential standard governing physicians in medical malpractice actions to professional negligence actions governed by section 27.

Jonathan acted as amicus attorney in the matter to protect the interests of injured plaintiffs through NJAJ. Defendant's deposition answers injected confusion in this case, perhaps in part by not qualifying his responses when plaintiff's counsel posed the question about the applicable specialty with singular phrasing. Defense counsel did not follow up at the deposition with a clarifying question. Moreover, the report of Dr. Perkel was obtained only about a month before the discovery period ended. Given these circumstances, it was held inequitable to not afford plaintiff an opportunity to obtain a substitute report from a family practice specialist with an appropriate opportunity for the defense to obtain a responsive report.

Remand was appropriate. A defendant may remove any civil action filed in state court to a federal district court having original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1446, which sets forth procedural requirements for removal, provides "[w]hen a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). This is known as the "rule of unanimity." The court agreed with Plaintiff and remanded to Essex County Court.

A municipal court or Superior Court judge must articulate the reasons for imposing a period of license suspension. Cf. R. 7:9-1(b) (requiring municipal court to state reasons for sentencing in disorderly-person- and petty-disorderly-person-offense cases) R. 3:21-4(g) (requiring judges to state reasons for imposing sentence in criminal cases). Requiring a statement of reasons for suspending a license pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:5-31, guided by the standards discussed above, will enhance appellate review and be a further safeguard against arbitrariness in sentencing.

Pending decision by the State Supreme Court