Thirty-two years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued In Re Wilson, a decision that decreed knowing misappropriation of client funds by an attorney must invariably result in a disbarment because of the need to maintain the public confidence in the integrity of the bar and the judiciary. Since then, the "Wilson Rule" has been interpreted by the court, the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board to require permanent loss of a license to practice law without consideration of the circumstances, mitigation in the case or the character or intent of the lawyer. There has not been a single published case where a finding of knowing misappropriation where disbarment was not the penalty.

If there was ever a time to reevaluate this harsh mandate, that time is now. Our Supreme Court's own order in a recent disciplinary case—which appears to have gone largely unnoticed—appears to undercut the rule. While we agree with the result of no disbarment, we believe that order has created a welcome exception to the rule and that it is incumbent on this court to codify and clarify that exception for the bar. And with good reason.