The New Jersey Supreme Court has rejected a proposed plan to open fee disputes between lawyers and their clients to public scrutiny. The court gave no reason, but there had been vocal opposition to the proposal from the State Bar Association and county bars. The opponents argued that arbitration is by nature a private forum, designed to allow parties to resolve their differences out of the glare of publicity. The court also declined to adopt proposed amendments to the rules on multijurisdictional practice.
July 20, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The New Jersey Supreme Court has rejected a proposed plan to open fee disputes between lawyers and their clients to public scrutiny.
The justices decided not to adopt the recommendation of their Professional Responsibility Rules Committee to lift the gag of the current rule, R. 1:20A-5, which prohibits parties to fee arbitration proceedings from speaking publicly about them without approval of the Disciplinary Review Board or the court.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
