In a landmark ruling that recognizes the fundamental rights of thousands of New Jersey legal consumers who file complaints against lawyers each year, the New Jersey Supreme Court has reversed the state’s longstanding “gag” rule. Threatening individuals with criminal contempt, the rule prohibited victims from disclosing that they had filed a disciplinary complaint against a lawyer. The decision followed HALT’s written testimony last year, which successfully argued that the “gag” rule violated New Jersey citizens’ constitutional rights.

In today’s opinion, the Court held: “A grievant may discuss publicly the fact that he or she has filed a grievance, the content of that grievance, and the result of the process.” R.M. v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, et al (A-89-04). The Court also stated that its ruling applies retroactively to all grievances currently being processed by New Jersey’s attorney discipline system.

“This ruling is a monumental victory for citizens who file complaints against lawyers and, more broadly, for all the citizens of New Jersey because it brings the attorney discipline system out into the open,” stated HALT Associate Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder. “Starting today, the public has the tools to hold the Office of Attorney Ethics accountable and to let fellow citizens know when the system fails to take swift or sufficient action against an unscrupulous attorney.”

The New Jersey Supreme Court observed: “‘[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.’” [quoting from Administrative Determinations Relating to the 1993 Report of the New Jersey Ethics Committee (1994)]

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: “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.’”

In urging the court to abolish the state’s longstanding “gag” rule, HALT partnered with Citizens for Justice, a group dedicated to lawyer accountability in New Jersey. “Today's decision, for the first time, allows ethics grievants who've been mistreated or ignored to publicly criticize the attorney disciplinary system,” stated John Paff, President of Citizens for Justice. “This will hopefully make the process more open and accountable.”

The New Jersey Supreme Court's opinion can be found here.