BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE
DISCIPLINARY PROCESS
The New Jersey Supreme Court
is in charge of disciplining attorneys. The Supreme Court has established
seventeen District Ethics Committees (DEC) each with jurisdiction over a
certain geographical area of the state. For example, the District VII Ethics Committee
handles grievances against attorneys practicing in Mercer County. In addition,
the Supreme Court has established a statewide Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE)
which handles more serious matters such as attorneys who have committed crimes,
and a Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) which reviews and hears appeals of ethics
cases.
Together, the DECs and the
OAE constitute the first tier of New Jersey's three-tier disciplinary process.
They receive grievances from the public, screen them, and, if appropriate, docket
and assign them out to an attorney member for investigation. If it is
determined that attorney misconduct can be proven by "clear and convincing
evidence," the DEC or OAE files a formal complaint against the subject
attorney. If it is determined that misconduct cannot be so proven, the matter
is dismissed. (In “minor misconduct”
cases, ethics authorities and a lawyer agree to “divert” the matter. In such a case, the lawyer agrees to
punishment but no information relating to the matter—even its existence—is ever
released to the public)
The OAE and DECs also
establish hearing panels that try contested matters. At the conclusion of a
hearing, the panel may either dismiss the complaint, or, if it finds that the
lawyer is guilty of misconduct, it will recommend discipline. In order of
severity, discipline can be 1) a public admonition, 2) a reprimand, 3) a term
of suspension or 4) disbarment.
The second tier of the
process involves the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB). The DRB will hear appeals
by grievants whose grievances were dismissed at the investigative or complaint
stage. The DRB will also review the level of discipline recommended by OAE or
DEC when attorney misconduct is found. If the DRB finds that public admonition
is proper and adequate, it issues the letter of admonition. In other cases, the
DRB reviews the case and makes its written recommendation to the Supreme Court.
The third and final tier of
the process is review by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Except for disbarment cases,
where there is an automatic right to Supreme Court review, the decision of the
DRB becomes final thirty days after it is filed with the Supreme Court.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Prior to March 1, 1995, the
public was virtually excluded from the state Supreme Court's attorney
disciplinary process. Although the public was advised when an attorney was
disbarred, suspended or subjected to severe disciplinary sanctions, the
majority of disciplinary matters were disposed of with "private
reprimands" which were kept strictly confidential.
On March 1, 1995, the Supreme
Court abolished the "private reprimand" and opened the process up a
bit to the public. Although there is still a large amount of secrecy retained
by the new rules, the new system is better. It now opens the disciplinary
records to the public, after a formal complaint has been filed, and permits the
public and press to witness disciplinary hearings.
It is important to recognize
the difference between a "complaint" and a "grievance." A
"grievance" is what a member of the public sends to a DEC or OAE
complaining about unethical conduct of an attorney. A "complaint" is
filed by DEC or OAE after a "grievance" is received from a member the
public and investigated. Up until the DEC or OAE files its complaint, the fact
that a grievance has been filed may not be revealed--even by the grievant. For
more information on this self-serving "gag rule" please click here.
Click
HERE to go back to the main Bartender Page