For 40 years the New Jersey Supreme Court's disciplinary decisions of In re Wilson and In re Hollendonner have mandated that New Jersey attorneys be disbarred from the practice of law for knowing misappropriations of clients' or trust funds. Unlike 41 other states, attorney disbarments are permanent without the possibility of reinstatement to the practice of law. New Jersey's bright-line policy is controversial. This editorial board has criticized it and a majority of members of a New Jersey Supreme Court Committee in 2003 recommended that in appropriate cases of knowing misappropriations the attorney have a path to reinstatement to the practice of law.

The court has consistently affirmed Wilson and Hollendonner. The facts of each case vary. In some cases there is a grey line between negligent misappropriations and knowing misappropriations of clients' or trust funds. There may be extenuating circumstances and the amounts of money may be small. Although the concept of the protection of the public and the deterrence of wrongful conduct are important, in reality imposition of severe sanctions may in some circumstances be only punishment.

The Supreme Court appears to have found a way to deal with a compelling case without addressing any modifications of the Wilson and Hollendonner rule or their penalties. Recently, the court considered last year's 32-page decision by the Disciplinary Review Board in the Matter of Martin David Eagan, where the unanimous recommendation was a disbarment which in large measure was compelled by Wilson and Hollendonner.