There is one area of the law which concerns all attorneys yet provokes little interest or curiosity among us. Unless an attorney has already been caught in its crosshairs or served on a District Ethics Committee, we are generally ignorant about the attorney disciplinary system. We may read the published cases and scan Disciplinary Orders for names we know, and we can even be familiar with most of the RPCs, but few of us can articulate the difference between a censure and an admonition, or a grievance and a complaint. Most of us will never have to. Since ignorance is bliss, most attorneys never investigate the world of attorney discipline until they are respondents. Then, under the gun and under siege, they decide how to proceed. Many do so without counsel.

Since every lawyer knows that attorneys who represent themselves have fools for clients, it might be surprising that even one attorney would appear pro se in a matter so directly affecting her license. Oddly, if asked for advice by a colleague in similar straits, that same attorney would probably encourage the colleague to seek counsel immediately. Nevertheless, hundreds of New Jersey lawyers undergo investigations, interviews, and random or demand audits every year without seeking advice or assistance from more experienced colleagues. Many lawyers even respond to grievances and answer ethics complaints on their own, assuming they will have the time to learn to navigate these new waters. Since many of these pro se respondents ultimately retain counsel before the end of the ordeal, it is instructive to know why they originally thought they could go it alone.