Wednesday, May 27, 2020

New Jersey Supreme Court seeks Comment on the Duty of Confidentiality and Wrongful Convictions

Supreme Court of New Jersey - Wikipedia

Update: NJSBA: no changes
Michael Smolensky: opposes change
Michael Blanch: duty to disclose
Missouri law professors: opposing change
NJ Supreme Court Committee on Diversity, etc. supporting amendment
Charles Toutant of the New Jersey Law Journal reports:
The New Jersey Supreme Court is seeking input on a proposed rule change that would require lawyers to speak up if they hear information suggesting an innocent person has been wrongly incarcerated.If the revised rule is adopted, New Jersey would be the third state to adopt an exception to client-confidentiality obligations for information relating to wrongful convictions. The other two are Alaska and Massachusetts.The proposed rule change, if adopted, would change RPC 1.6 to create an exception to the duty to keep client information confidential if that information demonstrates that an innocent person was wrongly convicted of a crime with significant penal consequences. The judiciary is accepting written comments through June 26 on the proposal made public Wednesday.The proposal caused a division among the 21-member Supreme Court Working Group on the Duty of Confidentiality and Wrongful Convictions, with a majority favoring the amendment, according to a report by the group’s chairman, Jack Sabatino, the Appellate Division deputy presiding judge for administration.
Notice - Report of the Supreme Court Working Group on the Duty of Confidentiality and Wrongful Convictions - Comments Requested

No comments:

Post a Comment