{"id":3822,"date":"2005-05-04T19:32:23","date_gmt":"2005-05-04T23:32:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/05\/04\/omertaesq-gagged-in-new-jerse"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:45","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:45","slug":"omertaesq-gagged-in-new-jersey","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/05\/04\/omertaesq-gagged-in-new-jersey\/","title":{"rendered":"omertaEsq? gagged in new jersey"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

<\/FONT> <\/P>
\n

On May 2, 2005, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments on the Court’s <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
own Lawyer <\/FONT>Disciplinary Procedure Rule<\/FONT><\/A> 1:20-9(a), which has been interpreted to bar <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
complainants from disclosing the existence of their complaints (under pain of criminal<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
contempt charges), unless a formal complaint has been issued.  Explaining R.M. vs. <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the Supreme Court of New Jersey,<\/EM> the New Jersey <\/FONT><\/FONT>Star-Ledger<\/EM> notes<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/A> (May 3, 2005, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
via <\/FONT>Legal Ethics Forum<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>):<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“The rule makes a grievance against a lawyer secret until an ethics <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
committee determines it is backed up by reasonable cause and issues <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a formal complaint. In the vast majority of cases, that never happens. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Either the grievance is dismissed as unfounded or, as happened in R.M’s <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
case, the lawyer agrees to correct a minor ethical lapse and no formal <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
disciplinary action is taken. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
” ‘R.M. can never criticize the ethics committee for not doing more regarding <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
her grievance,’ [R.M’s attorney] said. “In a free society, government may <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
not constitutionally prohibit people from discussing a topic simply to protect <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
people’s reputations.” <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"!key  ethicalEsq<\/EM> stated his opposition to such “gag rules” early and often (see <\/FONT><\/FONT>post<\/FONT><\/A>), as has <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the legal reform group <\/FONT>HALT<\/FONT><\/A>.   In May 2004, HALT reported in its <\/FONT>eJournal<\/FONT><\/A> that they had <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
submitted <\/FONT>Comments<\/FONT><\/A> to the NJ Supreme Court, asking the Court to declare the discipline <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
gag rule unconstitutional as applied to complainants.  HALT also suggested commentary and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
an amendment to <\/FONT>Disciplinary Procedure Rule<\/FONT><\/A> 1:20-9(a) . . . <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
– <\/FONT>click here<\/FONT><\/A> for the rest of this post, which <\/FONT><\/EM>concludes:<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
There’s no excuse for such disciplinary gag rules.  Take <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a look at the Doe<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A><\/EM> case from Tennessee, if you need further <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
persuasion.  Remember to subsitute the name of another <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
profession, if you’re a lawyer who doesn’t want to give up our <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Family’s little penchant for secrecy.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
To the N.J. Court and Bar<\/EM>: “Please give up the decoder rings <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and <\/EM> pinky rings.  Secrecy breeds contempt, not respect.  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
No More Omerta<\/EM>.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
p.s.<\/STRONG><\/EM> The same goes for Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Montana, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Nebraska, <\/FONT>Nevada, South Dakota and Washington, which have <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
similar gag rules — and the <\/FONT>27 state grievance committees that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
strongly <\/FONT>advise or <\/FONT>request consumers to keep <\/FONT>their grievances secret.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
after the big flock<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
silence<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
geese flying north<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n


\n

<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
the village of nondrinkers<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is silent . . .<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
plum blossoms<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Kobayashi ISSA<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A>, translated by <\/FONT>David G. Lanoe<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

<\/P>
\n

 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

 <\/P>
\n

 <\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-ZE","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3822"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3822\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13234,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3822\/revisions\/13234"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}