Amanda W. Figland
Associate Print This Page

Contact:
Phone: 856-857-1433
amanda.figland@obermayer.com
vCard

Amanda W. Figland has a breadth of experience, ranging from commercial litigation to domestic relations. Her varied background enables her to work across practice areas, providing clients with broad array of knowledge and adding real value to every representation.

Ms. Figland practices in family law, where she has handled divorce, dissolution of civil unions, partition, and child support and custody issues. She represents clients in grandparent and third party custody rights, prenuptial agreements, cohabitation agreements and mid-marriage agreements, and paternity. She has also represented clients in domestic violence trials.

Outside of the family law realm, Ms. Figland handles commercial litigation, specifically for mortgage companies, as well as contract and lease work for small businesses. She has counseled clients on ethics matters, mainly focusing on real estate brokers and other professionals involved in law suits.

Prior to joining Obermayer, Ms. Figland served as an appellate clerk handling appeals in matrimonial matters and emergent appeals for the Honorable Michael Patrick King, Presiding Judge Appellate Division, Westmont, NJ. While there she researched and wrote weekly bench memos for appellate panel and coordinated emergent applications for the panel during the weeks when the judge was on emergent duty.

Professional & Civic Activities

  • American Bar Association
  • Camden County Bar Association
  • Philadelphia Bar Association
  • New Jersey Association for Justice

Published Opinions

    Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Evaluations Inc., 304 N.J. Super. 278,  (App. Div. 1997) (holding that insurance carriers have no obligation to pay PIP benefits to medical providers who have breached regulations of the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners);

    Walles v. Walles, 295 N.J. Super. 498, (App. Div. 1996) (creating an exception to the Lepis v. Lepis prohibition on discovery after final judgment; dependent spouse was permitted to receive copies of former spouse’s tax returns so that if his income returned to the level the parties enjoyed during the marriage, the dependent spouse could move to reinstate her alimony to the amount the parties agreed to when their divorce action was settled);

    Lithuanian Commerce Corp. vs. Sara Lee Hosiery, 202 F. Supp. 2d 371 (D.N.J 2002) (plaintiff’s motion in limine at the second trial of this matter to bar reports and testimony of defendants’ expert witness prior to the second trial was denied as untimely.)

Click here for a description of the standard or methodology on which the awards and honors are based. No aspect of this advertisement is approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.