N.J. Supreme Court: Should we adopt Massachusetts RPC 1.6 (b): lawyer may reveal confidences “to prevent wrongful execution or incarceration”?

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s Professional Responsibility Rules Committee has informed members of the bar that the Supreme Court has asked the Committee:

Should an attorney be required to maintain the confidentiality of information relating the representation of a client where the information demonstrates that an innocent person has been wrongly convicted of a crime with significant penal consequences?

New Jersey RPC 1.6 (b) Confidentiality of Information currently provides

(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm

The Court has directed the Committee’s attention to Mass Jud. Ct. R. 3:07, which provides, in Massachusetts RPC 1.6 (b)(1)

A lawyer may “reveal . . . [confidential information relating to the representation of a client] . . . to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another.”

The Committee has invited the state’s bar associations to comment on the suggestion by August 13, 2010.

Senator Menendez - making sense of Massachusetts

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (DNJ) just issued the following statement regarding the special election in Massachusetts. Here's the full text.

I have no interest in sugar coating what happened in Massachusetts. There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now. Americans are understandably impatient. The truth is Democrats understand the economic anger voters feel, that's in large part why we did well in 2006 and 2008.

In the days ahead, we will sort through the lessons of Massachusetts: the need to redouble our efforts on the economy, the need to show that our commitment to real change is as powerful as it was in 2008, and the reality that we cannot take a single thing for granted and cannot afford even a second of complacency.

We must be aggressive in defining our opponents and framing the choice voters face. We cannot be timid about staking out our ground and we must be strong in reminding voters the cost of what the Republicans did on their watch and that they remain on the side of Wall Street, and the special interests.

But it is important to keep in mind that today's special election in Massachusetts was just that: a special election, with a whole host of circumstances that are unique. I would caution against taking a single unique election and extrapolating what it means for the midterms ten months away.

Massachusetts voters fail in Senate race

“I’m hoping that it gives a message to the country,” said Marlene Connolly, 73, of North Andover, a lifelong Democrat who said she cast her first vote for a Republican on Tuesday. “I think if Massachusetts puts Brown in, it’s a message of ‘that’s enough.’ Let’s stop the giveaways and let’s get jobs going.”

Appalling is what I have to say for the voters of Massachusetts.  To replace Ted Kennedy with a militant opponent of health care reform?  What motivates them?  We have health insurance - why should we pay for them? What kept minority turnout low?  Short-sightedness.  Labor?  More of the same. Democrats on the left whose complaint was the health care bill didn't go far enough.  And didn't vote in high numbers?


Whatever it is, the voters lost the election, set the country back, energized the wrong forces.  Those who call themselves progressive need to grow up and recognize how complicated it all is, how fearful people are, and re-commit themselves to the fight.  Did they think change would be easy?


On the big question: the House should approve the Senate bill.  Let the majority rule.