The New Jersey Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Oversight Committee (DOC) presented its proposed 2024 Attorney Discipline Budget. It recommends a $28 increase in the annual attorney registration fee. The fee increase recommendation is attributed to increased staffing of the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), as noted by the Court in an earlier Notice to the Bar. Last year, a proposed $27 increase was enacted over objections from the NJSBA. If the proposal is approved this year, the annual attorney registration fee would be $267.
The report outlines the basis for the requested fee increase, specifically citing to the fringe benefit rate as well as the “necessary expansion of personnel within the OAE.” Among the other factors attributed to the increase are increases in salaries overall, as well as benefits for personnel.
The DOC noted increases in the fringe benefit rate of 8.7%, salaries at 11.58%, and benefits at 23.72%. This comprises approximately 85% of the 2024 budget. Additionally, under the reorganization of the OAE and the Discipline Review Board as recommended by the Administrative Office of the Courts, additional staff will be hired within the OAE to “allow for the more efficient processing of cases.” Regarding operating expenses, the subcommittee anticipated a budget increase of 10.88% due to recruitment, library and data processing expenses, among other things.
In the past, the NJSBA has opposed budget increases pointing to the nearly 30% in reserves that the OAE previously maintained, well beyond the Court’s goal of 10%. The reserve at the end of 2023, though, will be 13.2% and is projected to be 9% at the end of 2024. The NJSBA will review the budget and anticipates submitting comments.
Comments on the budget are due by Nov. 22 and may be mailed to:
Clerk of the Supreme Court
Comments on Proposed Disciplinary Budget
Hughes Justice Complex; Post Office Box 970
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0970
They may also be emailed to [email protected].
Special Master Hears Testimony on the Effect of Buying a Competitor’s Name as an Internet Search Term
Last week, Special Master Judge Jeffrey Jablonski heard two days of testimony from lawyers who faced issues with other lawyers using their names to obtain favorable placement in search results on Google and other internet search engines. All said the practice caused some confusion, but they could not gauge whether potential clients were actually lost as a result. Bonnie Frost, representing the NJSBA in the hearing, likened the system to “pay-to-play” and said firms engage in the practice “because it works.”
The special master proceedings are the result of a Petition for Supreme Court review of Opinion 735 of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE) that the NJSBA and the Bergen County Bar Association filed. In that opinion, the ACPE determined it was not unethical for an attorney to purchase another attorney’s name as search terms on Google. By doing so, when a user searches for the attorney whose name is purchased, the purchasing attorney’s information is prominently displayed in the search results.
In concluding that purchasing keywords of a competitor lawyer’s name does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, the ACPE contended the practice does not involve fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The ACPE reasoned that the purchased attorney’s website will appear in the resulting search along with the competitor’s website, giving consumers more choice. Experts testifying at the hearing explained that both “sponsored” results and “organic” results appear in response to a search, but noted it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two as search engines design more complex pages to become more responsive to users.
In its request to review the ACPE opinion, the NJSBA argued that purchasing another person’s name for use as a keyword search which leads a consumer to a competitor’s website does not comport with a lawyer’s obligation to be honest and truthful. The practice could mislead users unfamiliar with the nuances of paid and organic search results.
Judge Jablonski is tasked with conducting “a detailed analysis and making finding of facts about the technical aspects and the practical outcomes of purchasing keyword search terms.” The analysis is meant to include a determination about whether “paid keyword advertisement search results are misleading to the average internet search engine user” and whether users can differentiate between paid ads and organic search results. A written report is anticipated to be submitted to the Supreme Court, after which further briefing and oral argument will be scheduled on the issue.
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.