More Resources For the Disciplinary System, and Rightly So
In the third quarter of this year, the New Jersey Supreme Court entered 37 orders involving attorney discipline. Frequently such orders involve matters…
October 20, 2017 at 04:21 PM
2 minute read
In the third quarter of this year, the New Jersey Supreme Court entered 37 orders involving attorney discipline. Frequently such orders involve matters that have taken substantial time to process, in part, because of the time it takes to prepare and hear cases before voluntary vicinage District Ethics Committee panels. As a result, Rule 1:20-6 permits retired and recall judges and other attorneys with relevant experience and participation in the disciplinary process to act as special ethics masters to hear complex cases, “with the full power and authority of a hearing panel.” Recently the Supreme Court has taken two steps to expedite the processing of disciplinary matters for the protection of the public and to exonerate those who are entitled to dismissal. We believe that those steps warrant the attention and recognition of the bar.
First the court amended Rule 1:20-6(b), effective Sept. 1, 2017, so that special ethics masters who serve pro bono or receive a per diem of only $350 and only for participation in conferences and hearings, may also receive the per diem for opinion-writing up to the number of conference and hearing days in the case. While we believe that the change won't really have great impact on the number of persons who are willing to serve as special ethics masters, it may well move a few more to participate and serve.
The Supreme Court has also authorized the chief justice to assign two recall judges to hear attorney disciplinary matters on a priority basis. One has been assigned to hear matters in the northern part of the state, and one in the south. We trust these assignments will help those who hear complex disciplinary matters to develop an expertise in the area and be available to move the Office of Attorney Ethics docket in complex cases.
We hope and believe that the court and administrative director will provide enough additional resources to the OAE so that there won't be a new source of delay in preparation for the presentation of cases, and believe these steps, while not dramatic, will help improve the attorney disciplinary process.
This content has been archived.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 AllNJDEP Proposes Changes to Hazardous Substance Discharge Reporting Rules
7 minute readAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 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