Investigative files relating to lawyer discipline are protected by court rule, and the court’s interest in confidentiality outweighs the common-law right of public access, a New Jersey judge has ruled.

“In essence, the rule-making authority of the court preempts a common law balancing test,” Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg held on Sept. 28 in Paff v. Director, Office of Attorney Ethics, MER-L-968-07.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]