NJ Supreme Court Committee bars negotiating for agreement not to file ethics complaint

Saying that the matter of attorney discipline is an entirely public matter, the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics has barred agreements to withhold filing an ethics complaint as a condition of settlement of a dispute with a client.  In Opinion 721 the ACPE explained:

"The Committee finds that such an agreement is prejudicial to the administration of justice and, accordingly, violates Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d).  An agreement conditioned on the withdrawal of a grievance already filed similarly would violate Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d). "

Although one may settle a fee or malpractice dispute with an independently represented client, the Committee ruled that

"Attorney discipline is not a private  cause of action or private remedy for misconduct that can be negotiated between an attorney and  the aggrieved party.  The discipline process furthers public, not private interests: it is not intended to punish the attorney or vindicate the aggrieved party but, rather, “to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity and trustworthiness of lawyers in general.”  In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451, 456 (1979). ”

The Committee’s formal opinions are binding, not advisory.  Under the New Jersey Rules of Court any aggrieved attorney or bar association may petition the state’s Supreme Court for review.