BAR REPORT - Capitol Report
State bar comments on character review process
February 05, 2018 at 08:00 AM
3 minute read
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.
NJSBA Comments on Character Review Process: Firmer Timelines, More Robust Review
The New Jersey State Bar Association submitted comments in response to the Supreme Court's proposed recommendations by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Character Review Process. The association agreed with a number of the proposals in the report, but suggested revisions, including stronger language regarding the imposition of timelines on the review process. It also reiterated its comments from last summer when a previous report was published urging a more robust review.
The NJSBA cautioned the Supreme Court that without firm timelines on the character review process, and with the elimination of the candidate's ability to appeal a determination and a reduction of the hearing panel to just two attorneys, the character review process could lead to a delay in review and a less robust review process. The comments were submitted in response to the issuance of the report and recommendations of the Supreme Court's Ad Hoc Committee on the Character Review Process last week.
The association pointed out that it had previously voiced concerns about the review process undertaken in connection with candidates for admission to the bar, the types of conduct that give rise to more intense scrutiny by the committee, and the often inordinate length of time it takes for a candidate to be certified by the committee. “The Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations address some of these concerns, but more review is necessary,” said President Robert B. Hille. He commented that the recent report “will be a good start to improving the system.”
The recently issued report focused on streamlining the process, but the association pointed out that a review of the substance of the process is necessary as well. In the meantime, the NJSBA agreed that the report moved forward to streamlining the process and encouraged the committee to go further. For example, the association agreed with the proposed time frames recommended in the report for the various stages of review, but suggested that more definitive language be used. “The suggested time frames should not just be goals to which committee members should endeavor; they should be firm deadlines that can only be avoided for good reasons,” said Hille.
Two concerns were noted in this last round, specifically the recommendations by the committee to eliminate the candidate's ability to appeal a determination and the reduction on the reviewing panel for hearings to two attorneys. The NJSBA pointed out that these actions may result in a less robust review process overall.
In addition to urging the Supreme Court to review its recommendations submitted last May, the association also encouraged a review process to be implemented periodically to ensure the changes achieve their goal of addressing applications in a fair, reasonable and timely manner.
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
© 2025 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 AllOn the Move and After Hours: Fisher Phillips; Cohn Lifland; Porzio Bromberg; GSBA
7 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Greenberg Traurig; Helmer Conley; Greenbaum Rowe; Trenk Isabel; Federal Bar of NJ
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Appropriate Exemption in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
- 2DOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
- 3New Partners at Cummings & Lockwood, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey
- 4'Extra Government'?: NY Top Court Eyes Ethics Commission's Constitutionality
- 5South Texas College of Law Houston Selects New Dean
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