September 24, 2007
By Dana Sullivan
A national lawyer watchdog group has given New Jersey's fee arbitration system a B+, but New Jersey's lawyers probably aren't losing any sleep over why it's not an A.
In fact, they are likely gleeful. That's because the state's system of dealing with lawyer-client fee disputes doesn't allow clients to go public with their beefs. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently upheld the confidentiality of the system after lawyers bitterly opposed opening it up.
HALT, a self-described legal reform organization that goes by its acronym, last week released a nationwide report card on fee dispute programs, and New Jersey ranked third, one of only eight states to get a B or better rating.
"Unfortunately, New Jersey's programs recently upheld a gag rule that bars consumers from disclosing information about the dispute, process and outcome of the proceeding," a HALT press release stated.
More precisely, the Supreme Court rejected a proposal from its Professional Responsibility Rules Committee that would have allowed clients to say they'd filed a case, what the case concerned, and the result of the mediation.
The court itself had asked the committee to consider lifting confidentiality after it had already done so for disciplinary proceedings in the 2005 R.M. v.
Supreme Court of New Jersey decision.
Abandoned
But after hearing in May from New Jersey Bar Association representative John P. Paone and immediate past president Wayne J. Positan, the court decided to abandon the proposal.
Paone and Positan had argued that the fee arbitration process should be confidential just like any other arbitration, and to change that would inhibit the free exchange of information during the process.
In 2006, there were 987 fee arbitration filings in New Jersey. About 40 percent concerned family law cases.
"The Supreme Court of New Jersey has been a leader in adopting and implementing innovative programs that engender confidence by the public in our attorney regulatory efforts," and the fee arbitration system is one of those programs, according to the Office of Attorney Ethics in its most recent annual report.
© New Jersey Law Journal, 2007
|
