{"id":4166,"date":"2005-10-19T22:50:53","date_gmt":"2005-10-20T02:50:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/10\/19\/nj-discipline-gag-rule-held-u"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:28","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:28","slug":"nj-discipline-gag-rule-held-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/10\/19\/nj-discipline-gag-rule-held-unconstitutional\/","title":{"rendered":"NJ discipline gag rule held unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the “gag” rule <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
imposed on those who file ethics complaints against lawyers, declaring it<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
unconstitutional.  The rule had threatened individuals with criminal contempt, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for disclosing that they had filed a grievance against a lawyer unless and until <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a formal complaint is filed by bar counsel.  R.M. vs. <\/A><\/EM>the Supreme Court<\/A> of New <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Jersey<\/EM> (A-89-04) (see <\/FONT><\/FONT>HALT Newsletter<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>, Oct. 19, <\/FONT>2005; our prior <\/FONT><\/FONT>post<\/FONT><\/A>,<\/FONT> “Omerta <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in New Jersey”)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"newspaperS\"  In its opinion<\/FONT><\/A> (per Justice Zazzali), the Court stated:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“[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.’”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
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: <\/DIV>
\n

\n
“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.’” <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

This echoes what f\/k\/a<\/EM> stated back in May:<\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n
To the N.J. Court <\/EM><\/FONT>and Bar<\/EM>: “Please give up the decoder and pinky <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
rings.  Secrecy breeds contempt, <\/FONT>not respect.  No More Omerta<\/EM>.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
p.s.<\/STRONG><\/EM> The same goes for Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Montana, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota and Washington, which have <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
similar gag rules — and the 27 state grievance committees that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
strongly advise or request consumers to keep their grievances <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
secret.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
The Court says the new rule will apply to all pending grievances, but not to completed <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
matters.  Over objections by three of the seven justices, the majority chose not to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
remand <\/FONT>the case to the Professional <\/FONT>Responsibility Rules Committee to review whether <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the removal of confidentiality should <\/FONT>be accompanied by a lifting of the current absolute <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
immunity for grievants.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
                                                                                                      “muzzleMate!S” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                        need a gag muzzle?<\/FONT><\/A><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                         <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
 <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_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}},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4166","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-15c","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4166","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=4166"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4166\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12962,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4166\/revisions\/12962"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}