I read the editorial contained in the Dec. 5, 2022, Law Journal. The title of the editorial was "New Jersey should reconsider precedent for permanent disbarment over misappropriated client funds." It is respectfully submitted that this editorial headline is not consistent with the body of the editorial.

Approximately eight years ago, on Nov. 12, 2015, the Law Journal published my op-ed position advocating that the permanent disbarment rule be eliminated in favor of giving an attorney the opportunity to apply for readmission to the bar. The next month, on Dec. 18, 2015, the New Jersey Law Journal ran an editorial endorsing that position.

The reasons for giving an attorney the opportunity to reapply for admission are set forth in the body of the editorial of Dec. 5, 2022 correctly. The ABA and 41 states have a process in place that allows an attorney to apply for readmission. A review of the Supreme Court case of In re Koufos, 220 N.J. 577, 577 (2015) would be a classic example where an attorney has been disbarred for a non-misappropriated client fund reason but is worthy for reconsideration. The DRB voted in that matter by a vote of six in favor of a suspension for Mr. Koufos versus only two votes for disbarment. The Supreme Court, in a four to two decision, voted for disbarment. Thus, more members of the two highest institutions (eight) in this state voted for a suspension versus disbarment (six).