Beyond the myriad of cases the judiciary handles daily, this year has provided significant changes for New Jersey’s attorneys and judges.

From a brewing fight over the way Appellate Division judges are selected to a pension dispute for a confirmed nominee to the Superior Court, as well as a rule change that allowed a path back from disbarment for the first time in 45 years, 2024 has seen major changes in the state’s legal landscape.

Battling Back From Disbarment 

For the first time in more than four decades, the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed disbarred attorneys a possible path back to practicing law. In October, the court issued an administrative determination and order addressing mandatory disbarments for those who misappropriated client funds. However, the court ultimately applied the new rule to attorneys disbarred for any reason.

The rule change marked a significant policy change. Since the state's top court decided In re Wilson in 1979, disbarment has been permanent for knowing misappropriation of client funds. It was a Black woman solo practitioner representing an underserved community in Paterson, Dionne Laurel Wade, who found herself in the unlikely position at the center of a push to change that rule.

"Going forward, New Jersey's legal system will have a robust and fair review process that not only protects the public but also affords disbarred attorneys, who have taken appropriate steps, a chance to practice law again after five years," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said.

The court's decision follows a June 2023 report issued by the New Jersey Supreme Court Special Committee on the Duration of Disbarment for Knowing Misappropriation, also known as the Wade Committee, which said that a majority of the body voted for a pathway back for disbarred attorneys.

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

"We now join 41 other states in allowing lawyers a path back to their license to practice law,” Lawrence told the Law Journal. “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."

Pension Problems Resolved

Jill Mayer was a confirmed nominee to the New Jersey Superior Court when she found herself in a fight to keep her pension while serving on the bench.

Mayer was nominated to the Camden County bench after serving 26 years with the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. However, she found herself at the center of a pension dispute, resulting in her joining private practice at Parker McCay instead of sitting on the bench.

After being confirmed by the Senate, the Division of Pensions and Benefits told Mayer that she had not completely terminated her employment relationship with the state because she "pre-planned" to return to state service within a required 180-day separation period. In other words, if Mayer took her seat on the bench, she would lose her pension.

At oral arguments, Appellate Division Judge James R. Paganelli called the judicial nomination process “a minefield” and said that judicial candidates do not know whether they will be working judges until they are voted on in the Senate.

The court's published opinion acknowledged that Mayer took steps toward her judicial nomination before her retirement date but disagreed with a Public Employees' Retirement System decision that those moves constituted prearrangement of employment.

The Law Journal Editorial Board said the Appellate Division's decision in the case is positive for the judiciary in that it creates balance through the inclusivity of judges from the private and public sectors.

Battle for the Appellate Division Dissipates

Earlier this year, it looked as if a major fight was brewing over how Appellate Division judges would be selected. The first signs of trouble came in the form of statements from the New Jersey State Bar Association and Rabner opposing an anticipated proposal to amend the New Jersey Constitution to make it so Appellate Division judges are appointed by the governor, rather than by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Rabner issued a statement calling the Appellate Division "one of the finest courts in the nation" and describing it as composed of gifted judges who gained valuable experience at the trial court level.

"The Constitution of 1947 shaped an effective and balanced intermediate court that has existed for three-quarters of a century," Rabner said. "To amend the Constitution in a way that would politicize the appointment process would have real consequences. Among other serious concerns, it would lead to vacancies that would, in turn, delay justice for countless litigants."

A proposal outlining such an amendment was never introduced, but Senate President Nicholas P. Scutari confirmed that it was under consideration. In a conversation with the Law Journal in May, Scutari said he has spoken with lawyers in the state who are not willing to take a seat on the Superior Court but would be willing to be appointed to the Appellate Division bench.

But NJSBA President William H. Mergner Jr. said he believes senatorial courtesy, an unwritten rule where senators from a nominee's home district must approve their nomination, is the issue that has had the largest negative impact on the number of judicial vacancies across the state over the past few years.

At the NJSBA annual meeting and conference in May, legislators addressed concerns over the change. And multiple state leaders opposed the move, including the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Salvation, and Social Justice, and the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. In a letter to Scutari, the groups expressed concern over a constitutional amendment "that would fundamentally alter the functioning of New Jersey's judiciary and transfer vast power over the courts to the political branches of government."

Many leaders cautioned that moving quickly would be a mistake, including Sen. Michael L. Testa Jr., R-Atlantic, Cape May and Cumberland, who is also an attorney at Testa Heck Testa & White.

"Quite frankly, normally, I would be in favor of giving myself and other members of the Senate more power," Testa said in May. "Why wouldn't I? But on this issue, it is such an important and long-lasting issue for our court system that we need to pause it."

Testa added that the Senate would need to hear testimony from experts in the field from around the country and from the state Supreme Court before the Constitution is changed.