After a Black woman solo practitioner representing an underserved community in Paterson was disbarred, she found herself in an unlikely position: at the center of the push to change that rule.

When Donald M. Lomurro met with Dionne Laurel Wade, he immediately realized two things: she would be disbarred, and her case presented a unique opportunity.

Wade was losing her law license after a random audit revealed a $12,000 shortfall in her trust account. Lomurro, the managing partner at Lomurro Munson, was at least the fifth attorney she consulted to help her. Wade, who began her law practice at a dining room table in a housing project, had spent her career working in her community, often for free or a low fee, helping people through bankruptcy or divorce.

"When Dionne came into my office, she already interviewed multiple lawyers who told her to surrender her license," Lomurro told the Law Journal. "They said there is no reason to continue the fight because In re Wilson is clear: you will be disbarred."

But Lomurro described Wade as a special person. She worked pro bono cases, volunteered with Northeast New Jersey Legal Services, and set up free law clinics at her church.

"I told Dionne, in the end, you are going to lose," Lomurro said. "But I believe we can change the law. The question is are you willing to go through this fight and argue that permanent disbarment is inappropriate in your case?"

She said, "Mr. Lomurro, that is what I will do."

Those broader efforts paid off, as last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court released an administrative determination that offered disbarred attorneys a pathway back to the law for the first time in 45 years.

During an oral argument session before the state Supreme Court in September 2021, Lomurro had told the justices he felt "an awesome responsibility to Dionne Wade."

"From the day she came in after other lawyers turned her down, I said, 'I will not leave you behind,'" Lomurro told the high court. "Because she represents the best in the practice of law."

Wade testified on her own behalf before the high court that she simply did not know how to manage the financial side of her law practice. She credited the Office of Attorney Ethics with giving her its time and patience when it came to her office and taught her how to keep her books.

"I had no one to teach me the intricacies of running a law practice," Wade told the high court. "I had no one to teach me how to balance a checkbook. There was no way I was going to be exposed to three-way reconciliation or advised about what to do about a trust account or ledger cards."

Wade's story was incredibly sympathetic. She told the Supreme Court how she was raised in a housing project in Passaic by a single mother who struggled with drug addiction. By the time she was in high school, her brother was incarcerated, and she knew she wanted to be a lawyer. According to her testimony, earning her undergraduate degree took nine years, and then she went to law school.

Wade said her recordkeeping was meticulous in the four and a half years since this started and pleaded with the court not to take the law license she had worked so hard to attain.

"After the Office of Attorney Ethics came in for the audit, Dionne took courses and was mentored by another lawyer of color," Lomurro said. "For the six years between the random audit and the final disposition by the Supreme Court, her account was never out of balance again. So you have to say to yourself, isn't this the person who could change this draconian law?"

Lomurro said that it is crucial to recognize that not everyone has the same chance to succeed in life and that Wade is the quintessential example of a person who deserves a second chance.

"Dionne fought the fight," Lomurro said. "And we won."

Wade declined, through her attorney, to be interviewed on her case, but Lomurro said she is extremely grateful to have a path back to her license.

On Oct. 15, the Supreme Court issued an administrative determination and order opening up reinstatement for disbarred attorneys, laying out 10 prerequisites and numerous other conditions for readmission. The move marked a sharp change from decades of precedent.

In re Wilson is the 1979 New Jersey Supreme Court case that established the mandatory disbarment standard for knowing misappropriation. In its decision in Wade's case, the court declined to revisit Wilson, but said it was time to revisit the rules on permanent disbarment.

To that end, the high court ordered a committee to consider the issue, which became known as the Wade Committee, inextricably linking Wade's name with the decision to allow attorneys a potential path back to the law after disbarment in New Jersey.

The high court's administrative determination noted that the majority of the committee determined that "human beings are capable of change; that offering Wilson violators a second chance is consistent with contemporary notions of redemption, reconciliation, and restorative justice; and that, with proper vetting of the lawyers seeking readmission, both the public and the reputation of the bar can be protected and perhaps even better served."

Former New Jersey State Bar Association President Jeralyn Lawrence of Lawrence Law in Watchung, who formed the Putting Lawyers First Task Force and spent much of her presidency addressing the well-being of the state's attorneys, called the rule change "awesome."

"This is an amazing day for New Jersey lawyers," Lawrence told the Law Journal. "We now join 41 other states in allowing lawyers a path back to their license to practice law. We are capable of change and redemption, so allow us the opportunity to do that. We are so grateful to the New Jersey Supreme Court to allow this narrow path back."

Current NJSBA President William H. Mergner Jr. of Leary, Bride, Mergner & Bongiovanni said the document changing the rules on disbarment gives insight into how the high court has evolved in its view of the circumstances that lead to disbarment.

"This was a long time coming," Mergner said. "The issue was studied carefully. You can see the thoughtfulness that went into the New Jersey Supreme Court's approach."

Mergner also noted that the path back from disbarment is not only available to those lawyers who lost their license for misappropriation.

Robert B. Hille, a partner with Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis in Roseland, argued the NJSBA's case before the state's high court, where he pointed out a problem with the knowing-misappropriation standard.

"In the Wade decision that Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote, he said that New Jersey had become an outlier in disbarment," Hille said. "Branches of government do not often change course. I really give the court a lot of credit for going ahead and reexamining the permanency of the punishment."