End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library
As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.
Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.
We regret any inconvenience.
Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.
New Jersey Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
Comment - Rule 1.12
The Court has adopted the recommendation of the Debevoise Committee. That Committee had recommended deleting the paragraph in the Kutak Commission version that would permit use of a screening procedure for a lawyer disqualified under this rule. As to ethical constraints on the judiciary, see, e.g., Knight v. Margate, 86 N.J. 374, 386 et seq. (1981). As to the practice of law by retired judges, see N.J.S.A. 43:6A-13.