Editor’s note: This is the first of two articles on the NJSBF 2025 Medal of Honor recipients. An interview with the other recipient, NJSBA Past President Domenick Carmagnola, will be featured in an upcoming issue of The Bar Report.
The New Jersey State Bar Foundation is proud to bestow the 2025 Medal of Honor, the Foundation’s most prestigious award, to retired New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Lee A. Solomon.
Justice Solomon earned a reputation for treating each matter with gravity, asking insightful questions and showing compassion for those who appeared before him. Throughout his decade on the bench, he authored the majority opinion in several consequential cases and was a leading voice in the Court’s efforts to acknowledge and improve mental health and well-being in the legal profession.
Along with co-Medal of Honor winner NJSBA Past President Domenick Carmagnola, the retired justice will be honored during an awards ceremony at the Park Chateau in East Brunswick on Sept. 17.
“The Medal of Honor recognizes professional excellence, leadership, commitment, and service to the public and legal community. This year’s awardees – Justice Solomon and NJSBA Past President Domenick Carmagnola – have exemplified these qualities throughout their distinguished legal careers,” said Ralph J. Lamparello, 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 Solomon, of Archer & Greiner, P.C., spoke recently about his life, career and receiving the Medal of Honor.
Serving as a Supreme Court justice allowed you to leave an impactful mark on the practice of law in New Jersey. When did you develop an interest in the law and why did you gravitate to that field?
I am a bit of an interesting study. I'm not quite like most of the people who sat on the Court. I was the son of an attorney who handled primarily real estate work. He never encouraged me to be a lawyer – frankly, he discouraged me. In college, I didn’t imagine myself becoming an attorney. I graduated with a degree in natural science and English as a double major. The only thing I believed I could do, based on my educational background, was write journals. I didn’t see myself as a technical writer – the creative side, like playwriting, was much more appealing. The one thing my father always said was that the law is a great education. Whether you practice or not, you learn how to deal with and analyze issues by going to law school. So, at the 11th hour, 59th minute, I applied to the law schools in the area that I thought I could still get into. I was waitlisted at the one that I wanted to get into, so I ended up selecting the next geographically closest area, which was Delaware. I actually liked what I was studying and pretty much everything about it, including my fellow students and my professors. That was the first time I said, "maybe I could do this. Maybe this is where I belong.”
Also, civics has captivated me for my entire life. I’m fascinated by the American Revolution. To me, it was one of the more incredible examples of human bravery and principle. The fact that you had this group of landed gentry who were willing to sacrifice themselves for an idea, and in many instances risked and lost their wealth and lives for the concept of freedom – that period of history continues to amaze me. I think that's why I gravitated to government and public service.
You are one of the few public servants to have worked in all three branches of state government. How did your experience in the legislative and executive branches influence your tenure on the Supreme Court?
An important thing you need to have on the bench is some understanding of how your decision will affect the operation of whatever it is you are ruling upon. If you're a trial judge, you have some sense of the impact that a ruling will have on the workings of the trial court, and how it will be applied by trial judges. The same goes for decisions that affect municipalities, law enforcement, defense attorneys. Understanding how things work, and how you affect them, is significant. Not because it necessarily changes the outcome of the legal ruling. Of course, you rule according to what's consistent with the law and the Constitution. The nuance of the opinion is how it will affect the people who are involved in the case. The Supreme Court handles a varied docket, including disciplinary matters and rulemaking. Everything it decides will have a downstream impact on the trial courts, lawyers, and our state agencies. Having some sense of that impact through my previous roles gave me a broader perspective. Sometimes the other justices would consult with me on those issues. Hopefully, I had some constructive things to say.
You’ve written the Court’s majority opinion in several seminal cases, including State v. Andrews and Crisitello v. St. Theresa School. Talk about the most consequential cases you ruled on.
Those two cases are important and involve issues that may ultimately come back to the Court and even reach the U.S. Supreme Court. I am not the most technologically savvy guy. Technology has changed society so much, and the courts, law enforcement and its agencies have had to grapple with unique issues due to advances in technology. In a case like Andrews, the U.S. Supreme Court had never addressed the exact issue because it was a relatively new one dealing with encrypted processes. Companies are now able to create devices that essentially cannot be hacked or searched. Even if you have probable cause that a crime has been committed, you can’t just obtain a warrant – like for a car or building – and find the information. You now have these devices that are code protected in a way you can’t access, even though you have probable cause. Relying on what the Supreme Court has said about those circumstances, we felt the cell phone passcodes could be provided without violating the Fifth Amendment. That opinion is probably cited back to me more than any other.
Crisitello contained contentious questions. That case came down to the religious tenets exception within the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which protects religious organizations that make employment decisions within its religious principles. Our job was to decide whether the NJLAD protects the school or the teacher. We decided it protected the school. These are tense and difficult issues. That’s probably why they are cited most often.
What makes an effective Supreme Court justice?
Patience and the willingness to listen. You have to understand the arguments of the parties before you. Once you absorb all of that, you have to listen to and understand your fellow justices to figure out where you stand in ways that can bring you agreement or disagreement. There’s a tremendous volume of information in each case and the lawyers arguing are incredibly intelligent and well prepared. As such, the issues are often difficult to resolve. Sometimes you can feel really strongly about a case and a potential outcome, and a member of the Court feels just as strongly in the other direction. You have to try to understand and appreciate their position and express yourself in a way that’s not offensive. I felt there was a learning curve almost every year when we started the term. There was a level of uncertainty for me about whether I could do the job as well or better this time around. You rely on your colleagues to help you along. And they do.
On the Court, you were also a leading voice in support of mental health and well-being in the legal profession. Why are these important issues to address in the practice of law and what progress are you most proud of?
Addressing this issue was important to all of us and especially to Chief Justice Rabner. I have some personal experience within my family that moved me to action. But what really brought this topic to the forefront was the great initiative by the American Bar Association and New Jersey State Bar Association to study why lawyers have so much difficulty. On the Supreme Court, we would review the disciplinary cases involving judges and lawyers. Over and over we saw that these lawyers and judges had significant underlying issues, whether it was gambling, narcotics, alcohol, mental health. This profession is incredibly demanding and time consuming, but you also have a life. Some people can compartmentalize, but others can’t, and they end up looking for ways to cope. In some instances, very sadly, they take their own lives. As members of the Court, we saw these issues presented in terms of ethical transgressions. But it was clear something was going on and needed to be addressed.
With the help of the state bar, in particular Jeralyn Lawrence who brought the issue to the forefront in her term as president, we were able to develop programs and outreach that allowed our assignment judges to speak to their vicinages about services that may be available to lawyers. The biggest accomplishment by the Court’s Committee on Wellness in the Law is spreading awareness that mental health is not a stigma – to let lawyers and judges know they are not alone and there are people who will listen and point them in the right direction.
Many people only know you as a Supreme Court justice. Talk about your life and interests outside of the law.
Well, the hobbies I used to have I've grown out of – running, cycling. I had a really horrific accident 15 years ago that set me in a different direction. I was fortunate enough to coach my daughter’s softball team and go to my son's hockey games. I enjoy being a grandfather and I’m lucky that my kids are geographically close. We get to spend some quality time with them. That’s consuming my life now – my family, children and grandchildren – and I couldn’t be happier. I read a lot to keep up with what’s going on in the world. If I read a novel it tends to be a Nelson DeMille thriller or another nonsense murder mystery. Nothing too taxing – I prefer that my recreation isn’t.
What does receiving the Foundation’s Medal of Honor mean to you? And how do you think the Foundation makes a difference not just for attorneys but the residents of New Jersey?
When you look at the people who have received this prestigious award – fellow justices, heads of bars – it’s incredible company to join and deeply humbling. It makes you want to look in the mirror and say, ‘how did this happen?’ To me, the bar foundation is a public service entity that is vital to the promotion of law in New Jersey and provides the guidance and services to assist those seeking justice. To be honored by an institution with such a tremendous reputation and record of service to the public, law students and lawyers is an honor I will forever cherish.
For more information about the Foundation’s Medal of Honor Awards Celebration, please visit moh.njsbf.org.