You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

May 4, 2005

omertaEsq? gagged in new jersey

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 7:32 pm

 


On May 2, 2005, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments on the Court’s

own Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure Rule 1:20-9(a), which has been interpreted to bar

complainants from disclosing the existence of their complaints (under pain of criminal

contempt charges), unless a formal complaint has been issued.  Explaining R.M. vs.

the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the New Jersey Star-Ledger notes (May 3, 2005,



“The rule makes a grievance against a lawyer secret until an ethics

committee determines it is backed up by reasonable cause and issues

a formal complaint. In the vast majority of cases, that never happens.

Either the grievance is dismissed as unfounded or, as happened in R.M’s

case, the lawyer agrees to correct a minor ethical lapse and no formal

disciplinary action is taken.

 

” ‘R.M. can never criticize the ethics committee for not doing more regarding

her grievance,’ [R.M’s attorney] said. “In a free society, government may

not constitutionally prohibit people from discussing a topic simply to protect

people’s reputations.”

!key 2  ethicalEsq stated his opposition to such “gag rules” early and often (see post), as has

the legal reform group HALT.   In May 2004, HALT reported in its eJournal that they had 

submitted Comments to the NJ Supreme Court, asking the Court to declare the discipline

gag rule unconstitutional as applied to complainants.  HALT also suggested commentary and

an amendment to Disciplinary Procedure Rule 1:20-9(a) . . .


click here for the rest of this post, which concludes:



There’s no excuse for such disciplinary gag rules.  Take

a look at the Doe case from Tennessee, if you need further

persuasion.  Remember to subsitute the name of another

profession, if you’re a lawyer who doesn’t want to give up our

Family’s little penchant for secrecy. 

 

To the N.J. Court and Bar: “Please give up the decoder rings

and  pinky rings.  Secrecy breeds contempt, not respect. 

No More Omerta.”

 


p.s. The same goes for Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota and Washington, which have 

similar gag rules — and the 27 state grievance committees that

strongly advise or request consumers to keep their grievances secret.

 

 

 



after the big flock

silence

geese flying north

 


 











the village of nondrinkers

is silent . . .

plum blossoms



 

 

 


 

6 Comments

  1. The text was good, but i stil cant find the play ipdates. looking for it dude.

    Comment by Joe Fuentes — July 22, 2005 @ 10:10 pm

  2. The text was good, but i stil cant find the play ipdates. looking for it dude.

    Comment by Joe Fuentes — July 22, 2005 @ 10:10 pm

  3. A heap of wheat, says the Song of Songs
    but I’ve never seen wheat in a pile :)
    did you like it?

    Comment by Peter Jackson — July 23, 2005 @ 5:22 pm

  4. A heap of wheat, says the Song of Songs
    but I’ve never seen wheat in a pile :)
    did you like it?

    Comment by Peter Jackson — July 23, 2005 @ 5:22 pm

  5. Nice one, but what about der weg ? anywya, congrats from me.

    Comment by Richard Davis — July 24, 2005 @ 6:41 pm

  6. Nice one, but what about der weg ? anywya, congrats from me.

    Comment by Richard Davis — July 24, 2005 @ 6:41 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress