I welcome this opportunity to reply to the September 18th “Voice of the Bar” piece by Jeffrey Surenian, Esq., and Michael Jedziniak, Esq. They suggest that my opinion lamenting South Brunswick's unfair attempt to besmirch the reputation of former Judge Douglas Wolfson overlooked “the facts” and “the law,” and that I inappropriately invoked my standing as Immediate Past President of the NJ State Bar Association (NJSBA).

To begin, the opinions in my statement were solely mine. I informed the Law Journal of this when I submitted it, noting it “represents personal opinion” and was not official policy of the NJSBA. Unfortunately, the published version listed my leadership role without qualification. Notwithstanding that omission, I make no apology for my opinions.

Accusations of overlooking “the facts” and “the law” appears to be the rote response of these counsel to others who dared to say the emperor has no clothes. Dozens of opposing attorneys, fair housing advocates, and municipalities have faced similar indignation simply for rejecting these creative conspiracy theories and holding South Brunswick to that hobgoblin of law: proof.

Moreover, antipathy toward Mount Laurel fair housing obligations is the tail wagging the dog of South Brunswick's scorched-earth advocacy. As one firm in the action, Waters McPherson, eloquently briefed the Appellate Division: “the Township [has shown an] avowed mission of resisting Mount Laurel through whatever means may be expedient, including: distortion of the factual record, outright character assassination, and general denigration of the judiciary itself, demonstrated by accusing a succession of judges of improper disposition, conduct, and decision-making, culminating of late with accusations that the Judge…deliberately ignored law and fact.”

If counsels wish to debate the facts and the law, let's have at it.

1. Judge Wolfson acknowledged representing real estate developers in Mount Laurel litigation before ascending to the bench. I surmise that the Judge's in-depth knowledge of this field of law was a key factor in his designation as a Mount Laurel judge. Other Mount Laurel judges have had experience representing developers and municipalities, and there is no basis to assume a bias or conflict on that account any more than if a former prosecutor were assigned to hear criminal cases or former insurance counsel were to sit on personal injury cases.

2. Judge Wolfson's track record on the Middlesex bench negates any bias against municipalities in general or South Brunswick in particular. As the public record shows, Judge Wolfson has issued Mt. Laurel decisions favoring municipalities and against developers for years, and the vast majority of his decisions involving South Brunswick's land use boards have been in their favor.

3. Judge Wolfson disclosed his relationship with Mr. Morris to counsel early on in the litigation, and South Brunswick never objected. Here is where South Brunswick's current tactics cross from vigorous advocacy to a “cheap shot.” Judges list former clients, relatives, and close friends whose matters they will not hear, and Judge Wolfson properly declined to sit on any matter involving this developer throughout his judicial career. Even though Mr. Morris and his company owned no property in South Brunswick and would not have been affected by the outcome of the lawsuit, out of an abundance of caution, Judge Wolfson properly disclosed his relationship to counsel at the outset, and afforded them opportunity to raise any concerns. They didn't – until after South Brunswick took its chances at trial and lost. Then, with new counsel, the municipality alleged improper conduct on the Judge's part based on nothing more than continuation of a perfectly permissible relationship that it knew of from the start.

4. South Brunswick has presented no evidence that Judge Wolfson violated guidelines on securing post-judicial employment. Our Supreme Court has prescribed rules to assure that sitting judges departing the bench do not leverage their judicial positions when dealing with prospective employers. South Brunswick's attorneys have presented zero evidence that Judge Wolfson violated these.

5. Evidence that Judge Wolfson socialized with anyone while on the bench is immaterial as long as he recused himself from all matters involving them and did not use his office to benefit them. Judges are not required to live a monastic life when they ascend to the bench. They are allowed to have friends—even wealthy ones who own airplanes. What they are not allowed to do is violate conflict-of-interest rules, and none of South Brunswick's allegations come close to establishing even an appearance of that.

A distinguished trial judge from another county and, more recently, a panel of Appellate Division judges rejected South Brunswick's arguments. Given South Brunswick's extraordinary tactics to date, they will likely try once again with our Supreme Court. I can only hope that the Court will see these disturbing tactics for what they are and bring a swift end to this matter.

Concluding my state bar presidency in May, I committed to continue speaking out in my private capacity in the face of unfair assaults on jurists. South Brunswick's dressing down of a judge who acted properly, was forthright, and served with distinction, serves no good purpose in our justice system. The extent to which this matter has been taken and the personal nature of these attacks against Judge Wolfson does grave harm to that system, not the least of the reasons being that it deters qualified jurists from serving in the areas of law where their knowledge and experience benefit the courts, litigants, and the public most.

— Thomas H. Prol. Prol is chair of the Real Property & Land Use Practice Group at Laddey Clark & Ryan, LLP in Sparta, and the immediate past state bar president. This statement represents his personal opinion and does not necessarily constitute the official policy of the NJ State Bar Association or his firm.

 

I welcome this opportunity to reply to the September 18th “Voice of the Bar” piece by Jeffrey Surenian, Esq., and Michael Jedziniak, Esq. They suggest that my opinion lamenting South Brunswick's unfair attempt to besmirch the reputation of former Judge Douglas Wolfson overlooked “the facts” and “the law,” and that I inappropriately invoked my standing as Immediate Past President of the NJ State Bar Association (NJSBA).

To begin, the opinions in my statement were solely mine. I informed the Law Journal of this when I submitted it, noting it “represents personal opinion” and was not official policy of the NJSBA. Unfortunately, the published version listed my leadership role without qualification. Notwithstanding that omission, I make no apology for my opinions.

Accusations of overlooking “the facts” and “the law” appears to be the rote response of these counsel to others who dared to say the emperor has no clothes. Dozens of opposing attorneys, fair housing advocates, and municipalities have faced similar indignation simply for rejecting these creative conspiracy theories and holding South Brunswick to that hobgoblin of law: proof.

Moreover, antipathy toward Mount Laurel fair housing obligations is the tail wagging the dog of South Brunswick's scorched-earth advocacy. As one firm in the action, Waters McPherson, eloquently briefed the Appellate Division: “the Township [has shown an] avowed mission of resisting Mount Laurel through whatever means may be expedient, including: distortion of the factual record, outright character assassination, and general denigration of the judiciary itself, demonstrated by accusing a succession of judges of improper disposition, conduct, and decision-making, culminating of late with accusations that the Judge…deliberately ignored law and fact.”

If counsels wish to debate the facts and the law, let's have at it.

1. Judge Wolfson acknowledged representing real estate developers in Mount Laurel litigation before ascending to the bench. I surmise that the Judge's in-depth knowledge of this field of law was a key factor in his designation as a Mount Laurel judge. Other Mount Laurel judges have had experience representing developers and municipalities, and there is no basis to assume a bias or conflict on that account any more than if a former prosecutor were assigned to hear criminal cases or former insurance counsel were to sit on personal injury cases.

2. Judge Wolfson's track record on the Middlesex bench negates any bias against municipalities in general or South Brunswick in particular. As the public record shows, Judge Wolfson has issued Mt. Laurel decisions favoring municipalities and against developers for years, and the vast majority of his decisions involving South Brunswick's land use boards have been in their favor.

3. Judge Wolfson disclosed his relationship with Mr. Morris to counsel early on in the litigation, and South Brunswick never objected. Here is where South Brunswick's current tactics cross from vigorous advocacy to a “cheap shot.” Judges list former clients, relatives, and close friends whose matters they will not hear, and Judge Wolfson properly declined to sit on any matter involving this developer throughout his judicial career. Even though Mr. Morris and his company owned no property in South Brunswick and would not have been affected by the outcome of the lawsuit, out of an abundance of caution, Judge Wolfson properly disclosed his relationship to counsel at the outset, and afforded them opportunity to raise any concerns. They didn't – until after South Brunswick took its chances at trial and lost. Then, with new counsel, the municipality alleged improper conduct on the Judge's part based on nothing more than continuation of a perfectly permissible relationship that it knew of from the start.

4. South Brunswick has presented no evidence that Judge Wolfson violated guidelines on securing post-judicial employment. Our Supreme Court has prescribed rules to assure that sitting judges departing the bench do not leverage their judicial positions when dealing with prospective employers. South Brunswick's attorneys have presented zero evidence that Judge Wolfson violated these.

5. Evidence that Judge Wolfson socialized with anyone while on the bench is immaterial as long as he recused himself from all matters involving them and did not use his office to benefit them. Judges are not required to live a monastic life when they ascend to the bench. They are allowed to have friends—even wealthy ones who own airplanes. What they are not allowed to do is violate conflict-of-interest rules, and none of South Brunswick's allegations come close to establishing even an appearance of that.

A distinguished trial judge from another county and, more recently, a panel of Appellate Division judges rejected South Brunswick's arguments. Given South Brunswick's extraordinary tactics to date, they will likely try once again with our Supreme Court. I can only hope that the Court will see these disturbing tactics for what they are and bring a swift end to this matter.

Concluding my state bar presidency in May, I committed to continue speaking out in my private capacity in the face of unfair assaults on jurists. South Brunswick's dressing down of a judge who acted properly, was forthright, and served with distinction, serves no good purpose in our justice system. The extent to which this matter has been taken and the personal nature of these attacks against Judge Wolfson does grave harm to that system, not the least of the reasons being that it deters qualified jurists from serving in the areas of law where their knowledge and experience benefit the courts, litigants, and the public most.

— Thomas H. Prol. Prol is chair of the Real Property & Land Use Practice Group at Laddey Clark & Ryan, LLP in Sparta, and the immediate past state bar president. This statement represents his personal opinion and does not necessarily constitute the official policy of the NJ State Bar Association or his firm.