The New Jersey State Bar Association urged clarifications to the Supreme Court’s proposed amendments to CLE regulations regarding technology-related subjects. The comments were in response to proposed amendments to the Board on Continuing Legal Education Regulations to include a definition for “technology-related subjects.”
The Association urged a clarification of the definition of “technology-related subjects” to clearly note that programs that teach how to use certain technological software, not just understanding the software, would also qualify for the credit. The NJSBA further suggested that “Generative AI” be included in the definition in addition to just “AI” to encompass issues such as hallucinations, confidentiality risks and transparency obligations. Finally, the Association suggested expanding the term “court materials” to “court and client-related materials” and “internal policies” to “internal policies and practices” to ensure that the preparation of all materials and the implementation of external and regulatory requirements are included.
Acknowledging neighboring New York’s technology CLE requirement, the Association also recommended adding language to make it clear that any course satisfying the New York cybersecurity requirement is encompassed in the broader New Jersey technology CLE requirement.
The NJSBA’s Task Force on AI and the Law first recommended a technology requirement for CLE purposes in a report issued in May 2024. To review NJSBA’s comments on the proposed amendments, click here.
NJSBA Urges Caution in Amendments on Activities of Disciplined Attorneys
The NJSBA urged the Supreme Court to create an ad hoc committee to carefully examine proposals amending Rule 1:20-20, “Future Activities of Attorney Who Has Been Disciplined or Transferred to Disability-Inactive Status,” because of its impact on solo or small-firm practitioners. The proposed amendments outline steps that must be taken by a disciplined attorney, including how to inform the public that the attorney is ineligible to practice law.
“The NJSBA agrees that an attorney who is suspended or disbarred or has been transferred to a disability-inactive status should not provide legal services or take any action that might mislead the public to believe they are able to provide legal services,” NJSBA President Christine A. Amalfe said in a letter to Administrative Office of the Courts Acting Director, Judge Michael J. Blee. “However, in our view, the proposed amendments to R. 1:20-10 go too far in mandating the actions required of attorneys in that situation as it relates to their voicemail, website and digital presence. The result could yield harsh and disparate unintended consequences.”
In particular, as it relates to solo and small firms, the Association pointed out examples of the proposed amendments and their impact on those firms. For example, that the requirement that a disciplined attorney not use an email address, domain name, website or social media account suggesting that the attorney has, owns or maintains a law office for the practice of law raises the question of whether a firm has to change its name, email address and other online references if a named partner is suspended – even temporarily. Another proposal requires a solo practitioner to prominently display a notice on their webpage of their inactive status and ineligibility to practice law, which could decimate a solo practitioner’s practice, while an attorney with a larger firm would essentially be able to serve their suspension with little disruption.
An inherent conflict requires a voicemail message to state the attorney ineligibility to practice law, and also prohibits recommending another attorney to continue an action. “This provision, as well as the email provision noted above, will leave clients and other individuals who might reach out to the attorney with little to no guidance about where to turn to continue with their case or obtain the legal guidance they are seeking,” Amalfe said.
With regard to attorneys on disability-inactive status, an attorney who is in this status is not engaging in misconduct but is required to publicly disclose medical information. This could be perceived as creating a stigma around their disability and is an intrusion into their personal medical issues, Amalfe said. “With all of the work being done to promote attorney wellness, this could have the opposite effect of discouraging lawyers from seeking medical and mental health treatment and disability-inactive status when needed and necessary.”
The Association asked the Judiciary to create an ad hoc committee to study the proposal further “with the goal of balancing the need to protect the public with ensuring an attorney, particularly a solo, small-firm or disabled attorney, is not subject to unintended career-ending consequences as a result of being subject to disciplinary action,” Amalfe said.
A full copy of NJSBA’s comments letter may be found here.