Judge in lawsuit to step down

The judge currently overseeing the nearly six-year-old battle between the University and the Robertson family will retire tomorrow after two decades on the bench. Mercer County Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster has presided over the largest “donor intent” lawsuit in U.S. history ever since it was filed on July 17, 2002.

Lawyers from both sides of the case showered Shuster with praise during his last week in office.

“He did a masterful job in establishing the framework for the trial of the remaining issues,” said Douglas Eakeley, a lawyer who represents the University.

“We owe him for all the time, effort and thought he put into this case,” said Eakeley, a partner at the firm Lowenstein Sandler. “He patiently presided over this litigation for more than five years,” he added.

Seth Lapidow, a partner at Saul Ewing and attorney for the Robertson family, echoed his opposing counsel’s comments. “We have nothing but admiration and affection and respect for Judge Shuster,” he said. “We’re sorry to see him leave the bench, as all lawyers in Mercer County are.”

In 1987, then-Gov. Tom Kean ’57 appointed Shuster to the Mercer County Superior Court. Shuster, a graduate of Rutgers University and Seton Hall Law School, has served in all divisions of the Mercer County Superior Court. For the last seven years, he was the presiding judge for the General Equity part of the Chancery Division, which handles lawsuits in which the principal relief sought by the plaintiff is something other than monetary damages.

“This job has been wonderful,” Shuster, 62, told The Times of Trenton earlier this week. “I’ve enjoyed it so much. I’m just a little tired, and I don’t want to get into a position of not giving 100 percent.”

Shuster will be replaced by Superior Court Judge Maria Sypek. Taking over Shuster’s caseload as chancery judge will put Sypek in charge of adjudicating the fight for control of the Wilson School’s $880 million endowment.

Support nonprofit student journalism. Donate to the ‘Prince’. Donate now »

“We’ll miss [Judge Shuster], but Judge Sypek is a magnificent judge, and we look forward to trying the case in front of her,” Eakeley said.

Sypek is also a graduate of Seton Hall Law School, and she received her appointment to the bench from Kean in 1990. Kean currently serves as one of the four University-appointed trustees on the seven-member board of the Robertson Foundation, which oversees the endowment.

Sypek has served in the Family, Criminal and Civil divisions and has substituted as a judge in the Chancery Division. “I’m very happy and honored to have been given the opportunity,” Sypek told The Times of Trenton on Feb. 8. “I have been in every [division] after 18 years on the bench, having developed a sense of fairness and a depth of knowledge that will help me to do a good job.”

Trial schedule

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Eakeley said that both parties are waiting for a case management order from the court that will set provisions for pre-trial conferences.

“The parties, with the court’s assistance, in our last conference, set as October 1 a target date [for starting the trial],” he said. “That’s a very significant date, but it’s not a firm date. It’s going to be subject to Sypek’s schedule.”

The two sides are not yet scheduled to meet with the new judge, and Eakeley said a trial date will not be set before that first meeting. “And maybe not even then,” he added. “Coming into a new position and taking over a very heavy, important docket, she’s not going to know immediately what her October 2008 looks like.”

Lapidow noted there is also a chance another judge could be brought in on recall to try the case. “We look forward to trying this in front of Judge Sypek,” he said. “We have no reasons to believe it will be anyone but Judge Sypek, but those possibilities are always there.”

Lapidow explained the difficulties of resolving the Robertson dispute. “The Chancery Court has to handle all matters in Mercer County, matters that are real concerns of real people on a daily basis,” he said, adding that though the Robertson case is important, the court cannot give it unlimited attention.

Both lawyers were also unsure how long the trial will last once opening statements begin. “If we have a normal, four-day-a-week, full-day trial schedule, the parties have discussed something on the order of four months,” Lapidow said. “It depends on the court’s discretion.”

Eakeley said the length of the trial will depend largely on the plaintiffs in the case. “They have the burden of persuasion,” he said. “We’re going to have to see what kind of case they put up.”

Both Eakeley and Lapidow said that they hope to go to trial soon. “From our position, we’re dying to try this case as soon as possible,” Lapidow said. “I hope we have a case order in place shortly.”

“I think it’s fair to say Princeton welcomes the opportunity to take this case to trial and seek vindication in court, and ultimate resolution of these many issues,” Eakeley said.

Case background

The lawsuit has provoked nationwide interest, raising questions about donor rights and the fiduciary duties of nonprofit organizations. The Robertson family alleges that Princeton has misused the Foundation’s funds by ignoring the intent of the late donors, Charles Robertson ’26 and his wife Marie.

Though the Robertsons state that the University has failed to adequately place Wilson School graduates in federal government jobs, especially those in foreign policy, the University maintains that it does an adequate job of placing graduates in the public sector.

In January 2006, the University and the Robertson family each filed several motions for partial summary judgment, where particular facets of the case are decided by the court without a full trial. After hearing oral arguments on the motions in November 2006, Shuster released a 335-page ruling in October 2007.

Both sides scored minor victories, but Shuster declined to rule on whether Princeton was the sole beneficiary of the Robertson Foundation and also reserved judgment on whether the University had exercised proper diligence by investing the Robertson funds with the Princeton Investment Company, which also manages the University’s general endowment. The family contends the University has violated one of Charles Robertson’s strongest principles: that his donation would remain separate from the University’s general fund.