BAR REPORT - Capitol Report
NJSBA advocating for municipal court attorneys, proceedings
September 28, 2020 at 08:00 AM
3 minute read
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) has been a vigorous advocate with the Judiciary and government officials in addressing challenges in municipal courts, which represent the face of the justice system for millions of people each year.
The ongoing crisis has presented challenges for municipal court practitioners, first because court closures brought their practices nearly to a standstill for several months, leading to severe financial challenges for some attorneys and, second, because the resumption of proceedings has presented new challenges to navigate virtual systems.
The NJSBA has sought to be part of a solution that would ensure fair and just municipal court proceedings could resume, and continues to work with officials to address emerging issues and educate the state's municipal court attorneys about how proceedings will work.
This summer, the courts announced municipal court practitioners and their clients could resolve certain matters online through plea agreements reached utilizing the court's new Municipal Court Online Resolution System (MCORS). The system is meant to allow municipal court attorneys and defendants to dispute minor offenses, such as speeding, improper passing or careless driving, and engage with municipal prosecutors to reach a plea agreement without the need for a court appearance. It is accessible to attorneys through the attorney login page on the court's website.
In June, the NJSBA wrote to the Judiciary to raise issues about the new program and plea-by-mail process, namely that it was confusing, inconsistently applied, did not effectively permit the disposal of many municipal court matters, and did not meet the notification requirements concerning potential immigration consequences. Further, the NJSBA said practitioners needed to be consulted about the development of a virtual portal, so they knew how to use it and how they could properly advise clients.
The NJSBA's communication resulted in action.
The Judiciary convened a meeting with the NJSBA and court officials in July about the online dispute resolution system. Following the meeting, the NJSBA was able to obtain a preview of the program for its Municipal Court Practice Section. Representatives from the court attended a section meeting in August to provide an actual demonstration for the section, answer questions and gain feedback from practitioners.
Just this month, court representatives participated in a continuing legal education program related to municipal court practice, and again provided a demonstration of the dispute resolution program, answered questions and asked for feedback. A representative from the Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) also participated in the educational seminar and was able to answer questions, address concerns and obtain feedback about how the MVC is addressing the needs of municipal court litigants.
In addition to this advocacy, the NJSBA has held numerous free educational seminars to address issues practitioners have faced during the pandemic, including several that addressed the needs of municipal court practitioners.
The NJSBA will continue to monitor the issues facing municipal court practitioners, their clients and the public, and plans to invite court representatives to an upcoming section meeting for additional dialogue after practitioners have the opportunity to use the system.
To read additional correspondence the NJSBA has sent regarding municipal court issues, visit NJSBA and see the advocacy section of the dedicated COVID-19 page.
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.
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 AllNJ Attorney General's Office Announces Major Shake-Up for Executive Leadership Team
4 minute read'Bewitched by the Technology': $300K to Settle Faulty Facial Recognition
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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