Courts Website Needs Updating for Pro Bono Appointments
While the website materials are helpful and welcome, we suggest that it may be time for an update. The Supreme Court should refer the matter to the appropriate committees and staff for the necessary changes.
July 14, 2017 at 06:01 PM
6 minute read
As described in Madden v. Delran, 126 N.J. 591 (1992), New Jersey is one of the few states in which attorneys may be compelled to provide uncompensated, pro bono legal services. Under Rule 1:21-12, the mandate may be satisfied by providing qualified service with a “certified entity.” An attorney may volunteer for a court-based pro bono program, but may not retain any fees (as opposed to costs) that might be awarded. Those who have not certified that they have provided qualifying services in a year may be appointed as Madden counsel by the local county court to represent indigent defendants in matters not eligible for Public Defender attorneys, such as defendants in a criminal contempt complaint for violation of a Family Part final restraining order.
Those who have served as Madden counsel typically find the process to be both professionally satisfying and relatively painless. Upon receiving the appointment, counsel contacts the defendant, court and prosecutor to determine the status of any proceedings, and obtain necessary information and discovery. Both the court and prosecutor are pleased to have a licensed attorney in the case. Upon receiving the necessary information, it may be readily apparent that the allegations are not contested, in which case one may negotiate a penalty consistent with any mitigating facts and the mandatory minimum sentence. In other cases, discovery may show that the complaint as presented to the local authority is not consistent with the actual facts as provided in discovery or the legal definitions of the alleged violation, in which case a short conference with the prosecutor or court may result in a dismissal. In a few cases, there may be opportunities for legal or evidentiary challenges—indeed, some have resulted in reported cases.
For experienced counsel, though, there are still some challenges. For example, the sealed Family Part court records are not available to appointed counsel through the eCourts system or directly from the clerk, even though the client or prosecutor may not be aware of relevant factors in the file that might lead to a defense—such as an amended order or concessions in prior proceedings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUnfamiliar Territory: Lawsuit Calls Mandatory Pro Bono Assignments Unconstitutional
4 minute readLack of Experience on Pro Bono Matter Results in Admonition for North Jersey Attorney
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250