The Supreme Court is requesting comments on its budget proposal that calls for a $27 increase in the annual attorney registration fee. The proposed $294 fee reflects a request from the Disciplinary Oversight Committee (DOC), which funds the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Office of Board Counsel, and from the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE).
The DOC says in a narrative accompanying its budget documents that the increase in funding “is necessary to cover the anticipated staffing costs associated with the creation of the ARB [Attorney Regulatory Board].” The ARB is a new board responsible for adjudicating petitions for readmission following disbarment, as well as petitions by suspended attorneys seeking reinstatement. The DOC anticipates six staff members in the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) devoted to “public-protective, post-disciplinary activity”, including the monitoring and review of petitions for reinstatement readmission..
The BBE’s proposed $3 increase would cover rising expenses due to inflation and increased ADA/non-standard testing accommodations, declining bar exam applicants, and a depletion of the BBE’s reserve. The BBE proposes increasing a number of other fees directly associated with the bar exam, but notes there are numerous services—such as processing name changes and updating employment information for In-House Counsel—for which no fee is currently collected. “Given the full scope of services provided by the Board,” says the BBE, “an additional allocation of the attorney assessment fees is needed—whether the result of an overall redistribution of the allocation or by increasing the attorney assessment fee—to help support long-term financial stability.” The other entities that receive funding from the attorney registration fee -- the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection, the Lawyers Assistance Program, and the Board on Continuing Legal Education -- are seeking the same amount of funding as in previous years, with no requested increases for this year.
The New Jersey State Bar Association previously expressed concerns about increases in the attorney registration fee in 2023 and 2024. Those increases were allocated to the DOC to offset anticipated reductions in DOC reserves and to fund additional full-time staff positions in the OAE. The NJSBA is reviewing this proposal and anticipates submitting comments.
To access the Notice to the Bar regarding the proposed increases, click here. Comments are being sought by Nov. 24 to:
Clerk of the Supreme Court
Comments on Proposed Disciplinary Budget
Hughes Justice Complex; P.O. Box 970
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0970
Comments may be submitted by email to [email protected]. Those submitting comments by mail should include their name and address, and those submitting comments by email should include their name and email address. Comments submitted anonymously will not be considered. Comments are subject to public disclosure.
Pair of Landlord-Tenant Bills Moves Through Senate Committee, More Amendments Anticipated
The Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee heard hours of testimony from tenant advocates and landlord-side entities on a pair of bills that would strengthen habitability protections for residential tenants and establish confidentiality of landlord-tenant court records. The New Jersey State Bar Association is reviewing the proposed amendments and continues to monitor the bills.
S4347 (Mukherji), otherwise known as the Safeguarding Livable Units through Municipal Landlord Oversight and Regulation by DCA or SLUMLORD Act, passed the committee along party lines following testimony from a number of tenant advocates who voiced concerns over the enforceability of what has amounted to multiple municipal code violations because of the inability to identify a responsible party to make the repairs. The Act is aimed to strengthen tenant protections by requiring the Commissioner of Community Affairs to establish a Habitability Enforcement and Affirmative Litigation Program to promote enforcement of code violations. The bill also codifies the implied warranty of habitability, authorizes a private cause of action for residential tenants for habitability violations and provides remedies for these violations. It also imposes personal liability and criminal penalties on certain landlords and their agents for severe habitability violations.
Landlord-side testimony expressed concerns that this legislation could create a disincentive in the rental market that would drive up rental costs. Tenant advocates testified – many with lived experience – of the numerous unrepaired violations and difficulties in tracking down responsible parties due to incomplete paperwork filed with the municipalities. The sponsors promised further amendments.
The bill heads to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, but has not yet been scheduled for a vote. There is no Assembly companion bill yet.
S279 (Stack)/A1703 (Hall) establishes confidentiality of landlord-tenant court records and restricts the ability of landlords to consider a landlord-tenant action against a tenant that did not result in a judgment for possession, or which resulted in a judgment of possession but was then dismissed or reversed. The sponsors have promised further amendments to this bill as well. The bill passed along party lines and is headed to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. It has not yet moved in the Assembly.
The NJSBA is reviewing this issue and is closely monitoring the bill’s movement.