The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the trial court and issued summary judgment in favor of a law firm in a case that challenged the limited attorney exemption in the New Jersey Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act (DACCA) as unconstitutional. The New Jersey State Bar Association participated as amicus curiae in Anchor Law Firm v. State of New Jersey urging the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the exemption is unconstitutional as an overreach into the Judiciary’s authority over the practice of law. NJSBA Treasurer Diana C. Manning argued the matter on behalf of the Association. Manning and Kyle A. Valente wrote the brief.
The limited attorney exemption protected attorneys were not “principally engaged” as debt adjusters. However, the statute did not define the term. That led to confusion as to how much debt adjustment work would trigger penalties under the law. The case emanated from an Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) investigation, which cited to potential violations of the debt and credit counseling act as one base of the investigation. The investigation has been stayed, pending a disposition in this matter.
Echoing the NJSBA’s argument, the Appellate Division held that the limited attorney exemption in DACCA violates the Judiciary’s authority over the practice of law under the state Constitution. It further held that the exemption was void for vagueness both as applied and on its face. The Appellate Division did not foreclose any further OAE investigation of the attorneys premised on violations outside of DACCA.
On a parallel development , the NJSBA opposes a bill pending before the state Legislature that would permit for-profit debt adjusters to operate in New Jersey because of the potential for abuse. NJSBA Consumer Protection Law Committee Chair Yongmoon Kim testified a number of times against A4598 (Lopez)/S1310 (Singer). The Association has said the proposed bill lacks consumer-friendly protections. Kim and consumer protection advocates cautioned that firms such as Anchor Law use an model that allows for-profit debt adjusters to associate with attorneys who allow the adjusters to use their name in order to conduct debt adjustment services. During testimony last month on the issue, Renee Steinhagen from NJ Appleseed testified about such abuses, citing to the model.
NJSBA Urges Streamlined Landlord-Tenant Complaint Forms and Processes
The NJSBA submitted comments in response to the Supreme Court’s proposed amendments to landlord-tenant complaint forms and processes associated with these matters signaling concerns that the proposals – while well-intentioned - may unnecessarily complicate and prolong the process for both parties.
“The NJSBA supports the intent to develop a standardized format to promote the filing of correct and complete complaints with the goal of reducing the possibility of an improper residential eviction,” NJSBA President Christine A. Amalfe said in a letter to Administrative Director of the Courts Judge Michael J. Blee. “The NJSBA notes, however, that landlord/tenant actions are meant to be summary in nature, providing a streamlined process for resolution.”
The proposal amends R. 6:2-1 and R. 6:3-4 to implement four changes to the process in landlord tenant matters:
• Revise the landlord tenant complaint form located at Appendix XI-X of the New Jersey Rules of Court to “further reduce the possibility of an improper residential eviction.” The Judiciary worked with stakeholders to create a standardized complaint form.
• Require the form be filed by attorneys and self-represented landlords. Currently, the form is recommended as a model.
• Revise the tenancy summons to reincorporate the trial date consistent with pre-COVID-19 practices. Currently, there is no trial date on the summons because it was removed from the tenancy summons during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of the suspension of trials.
• Remove from the Landlord Case Information Statement a reference to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
Several of the questions in the standardized forms request information that is not applicable to all parties. That can result in confusion as to whether the question should be answered and if they do not, whether leaving it unanswered would delay processing the application. The Association recommended the proposed Verified Complaint be revised to allow for the elimination that is not applicable to the Complaint being filed to avoid confusion and that steps be taken to emphasize the expeditious nature of these complaints to ensure that matters are processed and heard promptly.
NJSBA Urges Reasonable Relaxation Standards on HDMI Proposal for Court Presentations of Digital Content
The NJSBA urged the state Supreme Court to extend the proposal to establish HDMI as the standard for the presentation of electronic or digital content in court proceedings to include reasonable relaxation standards in appropriate situations. The comments are in response to the Court’s proposal to allow the presentation of digital content “in a consistent, effective and impartial manner” in the courtroom with five proposals to standardize the use of HDMI for such content.
The NJSBA supports this proposal “to the extent it is informational so court users can rely upon the availability of an HDMI connection to present electronic and digital information in all court proceedings,” Amalfe said to Judge Blee. Amalfe recommended the proposal be amended to remove the proposal as a requirement, instead relaxing the proposal in appropriate situations “especially for self-represented litigants” to offer flexibility to use other means to present evidence so long as the litigant can provide all of the necessary technology to present such evidence.