Editor’s note: This is the first of two articles on the NJSBF 2022 Medal of Honor recipients. An interview with the other recipient, Raymond M. Brown, will be featured in an upcoming issue of The Bar Report.
The New Jersey State Bar Foundation is proud to bestow the 2022 Medal of Honor, the Foundation’s most prestigious award, to retired New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Jaynee LaVecchia.
Justice LaVecchia stands as one of the most consequential justices in modern history, sitting longer than any woman on the state Supreme Court. She left a lasting legacy on New Jersey jurisprudence through more than 240 opinions she authored during her time on the Court. Justice LaVecchia, along with co-Medal of Honor winner Raymond M. Brown, will be honored during an awards ceremony at the Park Chateau in East Brunswick on Sept. 20.
“The Foundation’s Medal of Honor recognizes professional excellence, leadership, commitment, and service to the public and legal community. Justice LaVecchia and Ray Brown exemplify all these qualities,” said Kathleen N. Fennelly, president of the NJSBF. “We congratulate them, and applaud their outstanding contributions to the legal profession and to the advancement and improvement of the justice system in New Jersey.”
Justice LaVecchia spoke recently about her life, career and receiving the Medal of Honor.
As the longest-serving woman justice in state history, your name was synonymous with the Court for many years. When did you develop an interest for the law and why did you gravitate to that field?
As a child I didn’t know any lawyers. I was the first person in my family to go into the field. After I graduated college as an English major, I had a general interest in learning about the law and decided to apply to law school. But I did so without knowing what the practice of law might entail. It was my time with the Attorney General’s office, where I worked as a student, that introduced me to how wonderful the practice could be. I worked with very principled people, who were told to take into consideration the public interest in matters they were handling. For me, that was the place I wanted to go. I had an offer before I graduated law school and was truly honored to get that offer.
What inspired you to enter public service after you graduated?
Certainly, I was interested in public service because of how impressive the people at the Attorney General’s office were when I worked there as a law clerk. But I really developed an interest in government service while attending college during the Watergate years. I remember the Watergate hearings, and they had a tremendous influence on me. After that, I was inspired to become involved in the service of good government. So when the opportunity at the Attorney General’s office arose, I leaped at it. I thought it would be a great chance to use my skills as a lawyer.
How did it come to be that you were nominated for the Supreme Court?
At that time I was in Gov. Christine Todd Whitman’s cabinet, as commissioner of the Department of Banking and Insurance, where I served for about a year and a half. I had planned to go into private practice and was looking forward to making a change and being out of government. But unexpectedly, Justice (Marie) Garibaldi retired early. One day I got a call in my office from John Farmer, the governor’s chief counsel at the time, who asked if he could come down and talk to me. During the meeting he said the governor was interested in considering me, among other people, for the position, and asked if would I be interested. I said I’d be honored to be even considered. Of course, I had to talk with my husband first, but what a thrill and a bolt of lightning it was. It was something I never envisioned doing. When I worked in the governor’s office under Gov. Kean’s administration, one of my roles to was to assist the governor and chief counsel in judicial and prosecutorial appointments, so I knew how rigorous the selection process was for people entering the Judiciary. It’s a tremendous honor to even have your name come up in that context.
I went through the interview process and then ultimately was called down to meet the governor, who offered me the position. I remember when I walked out to the front steps of the statehouse, the sky was still blue, which was shocking because my whole world had changed. It was a momentous occasion for me both professionally and personally.
What is the biggest learning curve for a new justice?
The biggest challenge is getting accustomed to the multi-member, collaborative process employed when the Court discusses the cases, the arguments and determines how the Court wants to decide the matter and then shape an opinion. You’re not writing for yourself, you’re writing for a majority, hopefully a unanimous Court. Learning how to satisfy your colleagues is part and parcel of the adjustment process.
The Supreme Court, and the Judiciary in general, is probably the branch of government that the public knows the least about.
Can you pull back the curtain and describe a typical day—how the Court functions and how the justices work together?
After we hear oral arguments (when Court’s term begins in September), the Court doesn’t immediately discuss the cases and try to resolve them at that time. We follow a practice that’s been in place for decades—we return to our chambers, do more research, examine the record more thoroughly or precisely based on what arose during argument, deliberate, think about what one wants to do, and then come prepared the following week for a case discussion. The Court is a seven-person body. It’s not deciding individually, it’s deciding as a group. The discussion starts with the chief justice asking someone at the table to begin presenting on the case—lay out the facts, procedural history, issues, and relevant law—and make a recommendation on how that person will decide. Justices are allowed to speak uninterrupted, while the others ask questions afterwards. The next person in terms of seniority will then speak and tell the others how they will vote, and so forth.
Sometimes it’s necessary to go around more than once, until we determine where everyone stands and have found commonality. And then we move on to the next case. After the conference is over, the most senior person in the majority assigns the opinion. It’s a very orderly and deliberate process.
The Supreme Court is interesting in that it is comprised of seven justices, ideally, with different backgrounds and legal philosophies. How would you describe the relationships among the justices?
It’s a very friendly group. The people around the table work together collaboratively and we enjoy the time we spend together. Though we all have different backgrounds, we are a very independent court. Everyone’s duty to the development of the law is paramount. We focus on the case that’s before us, the precedent as it exists, the case law and talk in a constructive and collegial way about how the Court should develop the law with the new application. We’ve had people with prosecutor backgrounds, criminal defense backgrounds and civil backgrounds. But we decide the cases by using that background knowledge and experience to inform but not control the deliberative task in front of us. In other words, not as advocates for any particular position. There was no preconception for a certain outcome. Everyone truly deliberated and worked to reach the right result.
As a Supreme Court justice of 21 years, you authored many impactful opinions, including the 2011 Abbott XXI decision and State v. Davila. What are your most consequential opinions?
I think certainly the school funding and affordable housing decisions were consequential. They continued a line of case law that had been developed, and the Court needed to keep its actions on track with what had been the developed law. In criminal law, Davila was significant because it talked about protective sweeps and how they can and should be used. Of course, the protection of officers on the scene was important, but on the other hand there had to be certain protections for the homeowners who were having their premises searched without a warrant. I wrote on a dissent in State v. Andrews, dealing with privacy. I was in the minority, but I do think that case is very important. There’s still, around the country, some differing views about the subject. I know there was an attempt to have that case taken up to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the petition for certiorari was not taken by the Court. Ultimately, if there continues to be splits throughout the country, between states and circuits, maybe we’ll hear more from the Supreme Court.
How has the practice of law evolved to become more accepting of women?
I hope there will be more women who serve for long durations on the Court. When I went to law school in the 1970s, I was riding the wave of women who were entering the law in greater numbers. The increased numbers entering law in my generation built on the earlier generations made up of the likes of trailblazers like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor, and our own Marie Garibaldi. In my generation, there were more women coming into the profession. And as we entered the profession, after we graduated, there were more opportunities out there, particularly in government, which was very accepting of women lawyers and very good at creating new experiences and enhanced opportunities for women to step into. When I looked around the Attorney General’s office back then, and in the next decade and thereafter, I saw many more women in supervisory positions, which was just terrific.
One of the things I was exposed to early on in my career was the importance of saying “yes” when a new challenge was offered. I look at my career as being episodic, like a Henry Fielding novel. There were a series of opportunities that just happened to open up to me. I was offered a chance to do some very challenging things at a young age, and thankfully I said yes. As I later acquired positions of authority and leadership as an attorney within government, and then ultimately on the Court, I knew how important it was to give other people those opportunities. So, I tried to bring younger lawyers into meetings, particularly less experienced women lawyers, and encourage them to participate fully, and importantly, to step up when offered new challenges. Even if they weren’t perfectly sure that they could do something, I encouraged them to stretch. I consider myself very lucky to have had the opportunities that happened for me.
How are you adjusting to life in private practice?
I am extremely happy to have joined McCarter & English. I was enthused about the idea of returning to private practice. After all the time I spent on the Court, which is something of a monastic life, I looked forward to shifting back to the bustle of private practice, being an advocate again and counseling clients. Everything I hoped the return to private practice would be has come to pass for me here at McCarter. I work with extremely capable and collegial attorneys who have welcomed me here. The cases I’m involved with are very diverse. I’m in the business litigation practice group, which is essentially our general litigation department. I work with people within that section and in our practice groups on cases that involve product liability, environmental issues, and general appellate counseling. My activities cover a broad gamut.
What does receiving the NJSBF’s Medal of Honor mean to you?
It is an extraordinary honor because I know the importance of the Foundation’s work. To be singled out by a group that promotes an educated citizenry, extols the importance of the rule of law, and works to expand knowledge about the law and its improvement is extremely special.
Being a lawyer became the most important thing I believed I could do with my life’s work. To now be honored by such an important entity as the Foundation for my work is a richness beyond measure. It is an honor to be included among the incredibly impactful lawyers and judges so honored in the past. To be sharing this year’s award with Ray Brown, one of the best and most eloquent civil rights lawyers New Jersey has ever had, makes this an exceptional night that I will always treasure.
For more information about the Foundation’s Medal of Honor Awards Dinner, please visit moh.njsbf.org.