Earlier today, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the “gag” rule
imposed on those who file ethics complaints against lawyers, declaring it
unconstitutional. The rule had threatened individuals with criminal contempt,
for disclosing that they had filed a grievance against a lawyer unless and until
a formal complaint is filed by bar counsel. R.M. vs. the Supreme Court of New
Jersey (A-89-04) (see HALT Newsletter, Oct. 19, 2005; our prior post, “Omerta
in New Jersey”)
In its opinion (per Justice Zazzali), the Court stated:
“[T]he public is entitled to this information, entitled to know of charges
against attorneys, entitled to know who is the subject of those charges,
and, most of all, entitled to know how the system is working. It is their
system, not ours, not the attorneys’; it is their system just as is the
rest of the justice system.’”
As HALT reported, “Opponents of victims’ right to free speech argued that New
Jersey’s “gag” rule was necessary to maintain the reputation of individual lawyers
and the legal profession. The court responded:
“Shielding dismissed grievances behind a permanent wall of silence does
less to ‘enhance respect’ for the legal profession and the ethics process
than it does to ‘engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt.’”
This echoes what f/k/a stated back in May:
To the N.J. Court and Bar: “Please give up the decoder 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.
The Court says the new rule will apply to all pending grievances, but not to completed
matters. Over objections by three of the seven justices, the majority chose not to
remand the case to the Professional Responsibility Rules Committee to review whether
the removal of confidentiality should be accompanied by a lifting of the current absolute
immunity for grievants.
“muzzleMate!S”
October 19, 2005
NJ discipline gag rule held unconstitutional
Comments Off on NJ discipline gag rule held unconstitutional
what’s the rush?
While I’ve been goofing off today, Yu Chang
has been down the road at Union College
doing his professor (electrical engineering)
shtick. It’s a good thing he left a bagful of
haiku for this aging slacker to share with you:
vivid dreams
the din of a garbage truck
drives you away
turning over
a dead leaf
an earthworm twitches
Flamenco dancer
the old planks
resonate
giving color
to a dry reed
blackbird
Yu Chang
from Upstate Dim Sum (2004/II)
by dagosan:
my “funeral suit”
too snug —
someday, it’ll be baggy
[Oct. 19, 2005]
potluck
skewering Harriet Miers. Meanwhile, Prof. Ann Althouse takes
the Democrats to task for going soft on Miers, saying they are
showing their disrespect for the judiciary — as Pres. Bush. has
done — by giving Miers a pass. I still don’t understand the push
for a rush to judgment.
Is Evan being too sensitive? Ted too judgmental? Evan
Schaeffer wrote this morning at Legal Underground about Ted
Frank’s Point of Law piece on Vioxx forum shopping in Illinois.
Evan is not happy about the “subtle tone of moral condemnation.”
I invite our readers to check out both pieces and let us all know
whether you think Evan is being too sensitive. Here’s the Comment
that I left at Evan’s weblog:
Evan, When I originally read Ted’s post, I thought he was
complaining about the way the system works (what it
allows) much more than about the lawyers. After reading
your post and then re-reading Ted’s I still feel that way.
. . There really is a fine line to walk, and you’re right that
it is particularly hard to do so in the context of a weblog,
where staying short and punchy and opinionated is
considered a virtue. In the context of an adversarial legal
system, I think a thick skin is important — especially when
having a thin skin makes it look like you might be trying to
win points by attacking the other person rather than addressing
the policy issues.
It’s a tightrope shaped like a vicious circle. (update: here is
Ted’s admittedly “wordy” response to Evan.)
Comments Off on what’s the rush?