Viewed through the prism of a citizens' group that faults most states' attorney discipline systems as lenient on lawyers and burdensome on grievants, New Jersey's is middling at best.

HALT - short for "Help Abolish Legal Tyranny" - graded the states on a curve and gave New Jersey a C-, ranking it 27th in the nation in terms of consumer friendliness. No state received an A. Pennsylvania and North Carolina were the only states to receive Fs. New York earned a D.

Although New Jersey received a B- for "responsiveness" and a B+ and "openness," its overall grade was dragged down by Ds in "fairness" and "adequacy of discipline imposed." HALT faults the Office of Attorney Ethics for imposing a gag rule on grievants and for punishing only a tiny fraction of the attorneys who come to its attention.

The results of the survey are posted at www.halt.org, the Web site of the Washington, D.C.-based organization that describes itself as "dedicated to helping all Americans handle their legal affairs simply, affordably and equitably."

Officials representing the discipline system and the judiciary denounced the survey as biased and riddled with errors.

"A special interest group committed to 'abolishing legal tyranny' devises its own scale to measure attorney discipline systems and then gives them an unsatisfactory rating," says OAE director David Johnson. "This is not news. It's a designed media event," he says, declining further comment.

In terms of adequacy of discipline, HALT's numbers are based on the most recent American Bar Association report on lawyer-discipline systems. In that 2000 survey, New Jersey was recorded as having received 6,495 grievances. Of those, 2,518 were investigated; the remainder were judged to be not covered by the rules. Of the investigated grievances, 1,048 were dismissed in favor of the attorney. Formal charges were filed in 255 cases. Of that number, 174 resulted in sanctions.

The chief counsel to the Disciplinary Review Board insists that all grievances receive review. "They're looked at by district committees," says Robyn Hill. If the allegations don't add up, "letters go out to people saying that even if the facts were proven they would not constitute unethical conduct. Those are cases that don't go through the investigation process."

Suzanne Mishkin, HALT's associate counsel, responds, "If two-thirds of the complaints coming in the door aren't receiving any kind of review, the jurisdiction needs to be broadened."

Mishkin admits the survey does contain some errors. Her research included 71 cases of "private sanctions," even though those were abolished in New Jersey in 1995. Mishkin notes that the source material came from the ABA, which seems to have made the error.

Ellyn Rosen, the ABA's associate regulation counsel, says the 71 sanctions represent cases sent into diversion.

Mishkin's adds that the discrepancy would be unlikely to be large enough to raise the state's overall grade.

On the issue of the gag rule, HALT disapproves of the confidentiality that binds the grievant before the filing of a formal complaint. "That's a direct infringement of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech."

Hill notes that the infringement is a slim one, as the confidentiality rule only covers the existence of the OAE paperwork, not the substantive allegations. "They can talk about the facts of the case. They cannot talk about the fact that there is an ethics matter pending," she says. Once a formal complaint is filed, the confidentiality ends.

The OAE gives all grievants the same advice before they file, citing Rule 1:20-9[a]. The rule, however, does not explicitly state who is supposed to be keeping the confidence. The OAE director is the only body named in the rule, which says: "Prior to the filing and service of a complaint in a disciplinary matter, or a motion for final or reciprocal discipline, or the approval of a motion for discipline by consent, the disciplinary matter and all written records received and made pursuant to these rules shall be confidential, except that the pendency, subject matter, and status of a grievance may be disclosed by the Director ... " The rule then lists the circumstances under which disclosure may occur.

"The confidentiality provision could be construed narrowly. It could apply only to the OAE," says Michael Ambrosio, a professor at Seton Hall University School of Law. "But my understanding is it was always read broadly."

The state earned Cs in "public participation" and "promptness." HALT would like to see more laymen on discipline panels and a speedier process. Also, from start to finish, a grievance can take a year to trigger a sanction, longer than the average time in the other states, Mishkin says.

Hill calls the comparison unfair because all state systems are different. New Jersey's is a creature of the Supreme Court, while some other states funnel complaints through state bar associations.

"I think the survey is fairly simplistic," she says. Still, "I'm not concerned to the point that I'm going to ask for a recount ... I think we do a very good job."