I Don't Want to Ruin Your Day ...
A brief overview of what happens when a grievance or complaint is filed against you with the Office of Attorney Ethics.
September 11, 2017 at 01:42 PM
15 minute read
Despite having passed the requisite Professional Responsibility exam and collected many hours of Ethics CLE credits, many attorneys still seem to have little knowledge and less curiosity about the form and function of the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE). Many of us treat the OAE as we might treat the Workers' Compensation Court or the Immigration or Patent or Tax Courts if our practices did not concern themselves with those matters. Not having business in such tribunals, we don't fill our data banks with information about them. We don't need to know where the courthouse is, who the judges are or how their proceedings proceed. We needn't know the players, follow changes in the law or know how to file a motion.
From this perhaps we can conclude that New Jersey attorneys' general indifference about the OAE stems from our knowledge that we'll never have a reason to cross paths with the Bar or to visit their offices out on Bear Tavern Road in Ewing. Being certain of our good ethics, we are comfortable with our superficial understanding of the investigatory and disciplinary apparatus that is quietly and constantly working in the background. Hence, most respondents learn about the OAE on a need-to-know basis.
A better way to learn about the OAE is membership on a District Ethics Committee, volunteering to investigate and process alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs). Attorneys in good standing with over five years at the bar should consider this; but understand that this is not a “no-show” job. Real effort is expected, and the volunteers perform a thankless service of inestimable value to their colleagues and to the profession. At the same time, they will acquire a better understanding of the OAE—that omnipotent arm of the Supreme Court that owns our licenses and controls everything thereto appurtenant.
This content has been archived.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 AllThe Narrow Path Back From Disbarment: 'You Have to Really Want to Be a Lawyer Again'
5 minute read2024 Continuing Legal Education Attorney Ineligible List and In-House Counsel Ineligible List
'No One to Teach Me': How an Attorney Working From Her Dining Room Table Helped Create Path Back for Disbarred Attorneys
6 minute readWe Applaud NJ Supreme Court's Balanced Rules for Reinstatement of Disbarred Attorneys
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commission Confirms Three of Newsom's Appellate Court Picks
- 2Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 3GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 4'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 5Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
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