Supreme Court Responsibilities of Attorney Oversight

In addition to its judicial responsibilities, the New Jersey Supreme Court oversees all aspects of Judiciary administration as well as the practice of law. The New Jersey Constitution granted the Supreme Court authority over the admission and licensing, regulation and discipline of attorneys, and the discipline of judges in the state.

These functions occur through the following boards and committees. The members of these bodies are appointed by the Supreme Court:

New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners - The court administers bar admissions through the Board of Bar Examiners. The New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners prepares and conducts examinations for admissions as attorneys, develops rules, forms, and procedures governing the exams, and states the topics upon which candidates are tested.

New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection - The New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection was established to reimburse clients when a lawyer betrays a client’s trust by misappropriating funds. The fund also handles the payment and registration process for lawyers admitted to practice. The fund was created as a committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association in 1961. At the request of the Bar, the fund took its present form in 1969 and has served as a national leader.

Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) - The Office of Attorney Ethics is the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Supreme Court in discharging the court’s constitutional responsibility to supervise and discipline New Jersey attorneys. The OAE assists and manages 18 district ethics committees and 17 district fee arbitration committees throughout the state. The OAE also itself handles serious, emergent, and complex disciplinary prosecutions. The OAE also administers the Random Audit Compliance Program, which monitors the recordkeeping responsibilities of private practice law firms.

Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) - The Disciplinary Review Board serves as the intermediate appellate level of the attorney disciplinary system in the state. The board reviews all recommendations for discipline from district ethics committees, special masters, and the Office of Attorney Ethics. The board conducts a de novo review of the record, with oral argument at the board’s discretion. De novo review requires the board to evaluate the record anew and to make its own findings, after which the board could dismiss any findings made by a district ethics committee or a special master, and also could disagree with a committee’s or a special master’s dismissal of some of the charges. The board hears oral argument on all cases in which a district ethics committee or a special master issues a report recommending discipline greater than an admonition. Occasionally, the board remands matters for further proceedings. At the conclusion of oral argument, the board privately deliberates about the appropriate outcome of each case and votes for either dismissal of the complaint or for the imposition of one of several forms of discipline: admonition, reprimand and censure (letter or decision detailing the attorney’s misconduct; admonition being the least serious, censure being the most serious); suspension, and disbarment. The board’s decisions on discipline are final in all cases, subject to the Supreme Court’s confirming order, except those decisions recommending disbarment, which are reviewed by the Supreme Court. The board’s determinations of appeals from dismissals of ethics grievances and of appeals from fee arbitration committee rulings are final, with no recourse to the Supreme Court. Since 1994, all disciplinary proceedings have been public, after the filing and service of a complaint, with limited exceptions. Fee arbitration proceedings are confidential. The Supreme Court created the board in 1978, and the Office of Disciplinary Review Board Counsel in 1984.

Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) - The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) was created in 1974 to assist the Supreme Court by investigating allegations of unethical judicial conduct and by referring to the Court those matters that the committee considers requiring public disciplinary action. The committee investigates complaints against judges in municipal court, Superior Court, the Tax Court, and the Supreme Court. The committee is not a court, and it cannot interfere in a court case. The members do not investigate complaints that a judge’s decision is incorrect. The committee’s decisions have no effect on the outcome of any court case. The committee also cannot have a judge removed from a case. All records of and investigations conducted by the ACJC’s staff are confidential in accordance with Court Rule 2:15-20. Confidentiality ceases only if and when the ACJC decides that there is probable cause for the imposition of public discipline and issues a formal complaint requiring the judge to answer and appear at a public hearing. Proceedings from the formal complaint are no longer confidential.