Ethics Panel Bars Contempt Threats in Mailed Subpoenas
David Gialanella, New Jersey Law Journal

New Jersey lawyers are being warned off of threatening contempt of court in subpoenas that are mailed rather than hand-delivered-an apparently pervasive practice despite the fact that the Appellate Division proscribed it six years ago.
In Opinion 729, the state Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics said that doing so is not provided for in court rules-and neither, for that matter, are mailed subpoenas.
"Failure to obey a subpoena is deemed contempt of court," but "[w]hen a subpoena is sent by ordinary mail instead of being served personally, a recipient who fails to obey the subpoena cannot be deemed in contempt of court as the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the recipient," the committee said.
The panel received an inquiry from a lawyer asking whether it was permissible to include language threatening sanctions for noncompliance with a subpoena duces tecum, according to the two-page opinion, dated Oct. 30 and made public Nov. 2.
The lawyer, unnamed in the opinion, asked specifically whether including such language would be a "false statement of material fact" in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1(a)(1) since noncompliance is sanctionable only in connection with subpoenas served in person.
Read more: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202741474979/Ethics-Panel-Bars-Contempt-Threats-in-Mailed-Subpoenas#ixzz3qSSXQgVw