This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.
New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) President Domenick Carmagnola urged a delay in reconsideration of whether the use of peremptory challenges in an allegedly race-based manner implicates an ethics violation until the Judicial Conference Committee prepares recommendations to address implicit bias in the jury selection process.
In a letter to the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE), Carmagnola expressed concerns that any comments made by the NJSBA regarding the committee’s withdrawal of a previous opinion on the issue is premature without consideration of an anticipated report by the Judicial Conference Committee expected to address and propose reforms to the jury selection process.
The response came following ACPE’s announcement it was withdrawing Opinion 685, which concluded that race-based peremptory challenges were not prohibited by Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). In its analysis, however, the committee acknowledged the unconstitutionality of such challenges, but cautioned against disciplinary actions against attorneys who use them “in the interest of their clients.” The ACPE requested further comments as it contemplates whether to issue a new opinion on the issue.
In November 2021, the Supreme Court convened a Judicial Conference on Jury Selection pursuant to R. 1:35 to discuss several aspects of the jury selection process in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Andujar, 247 N.J. 275 (2021). The NJSBA issued its a report on implicit bias in the jury selection process and presented remarks at the conference. Following the conference, several NJSBA members have participated in Judicial Conference Committee meetings to continue the dialogue on the issue.
“We appreciate the ACPE’s diligence and commitment to providing members of the bar with appropriate ethical guidance,” said Carmagnola. “After careful consideration, though, the NJSBA has concluded that it would be difficult to provide further recommendations about the application of RPC 8.4(g) to lawyers’ conduct in the jury selection process without the benefit of knowing what that process will be following the issuance and consideration of the Judicial Conference Committee report which is expected to be released shortly.”
Rule amendment bars public access to outdated adverse tenant information
The Supreme Court issued an order amending R. 1:38-3(f) to remove from public access records of landlord-tenant cases and certain information regarding actions against tenants.
The NJSBA did not take a position on this amendment. However, through the New Jersey State Bar Foundation as well as clinics with partner organizations in the legal community, it has aided tenants and supported easier access to documents to help them complete certifications under the Eviction Protection Act to access rental assistance. This rule provides tenants some relief in this regard.
The rule removes from public access records of landlord-tenant cases in two instances – in cases adjudicated or otherwise disposed of where no judgment or possession has ever been entered and in cases where a judgment for possession was entered seven years or longer. The amendments are effective beginning May 1. For a full copy of the amendment, go to njcourts.gov.