I have reviewed the complaint against this firm filed online with your organization. As attorneys, we are regulated exclusively by the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”). Those...
Rules impose significant strictures upon our ability to respond publicly to a former client of this firm. In particular, the attorney-client privilege protects all of our confidential communications with the complainant, and we are duty bound not to disclose same. Partial disclosures of privileged conversations can be, and often are, construed as an abrogation of all privileged communications. Additionally, RPC 1.6 governs attorneys’ management of their clients’ confidential information, and this Rule has been construed to provide broader protections than those provided by the attorney-client privilege, further limiting our ability to respond publicly to the complainant. Mindful of the above-referenced Rules and restrictions, we are unable to comment further or to provide detailed descriptions of our conversations with the complainant. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court of New Jersey established a private, confidential, and expedient system for adjudicating fee disputes between attorneys and their clients — a process known as “fee arbitration.” A fee arbitration proceeding would afford the complainant precisely what he purports to be seeking — a “line-by-line” review of the charges he wishes to contest, and a confidential forum in which to voice his concerns. Pursuant to R. 1:20A-6 of the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey, on May 20, 2015, we provided the complainant with written notice of the amount in controversy, and the specific procedures he may follow to invoke his right to a fee arbitration. We are not permitted to initiate the proceeding — the right to fee arbitration lies exclusively with the client. To date, the complainant has not elected fee arbitration. As a result of the constraints imposed upon attorneys of this State from divulging confidential communications or information obtained from their clients, we are unable to provide any further public response. Thank you. Very truly yours, PATRICIA K. H[redacted]
I have reviewed the complaint against this firm filed online with your organization. As attorneys, we are regulated exclusively by the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”). Those...
Rules impose significant strictures upon our ability to respond publicly to a former client of this firm. In particular, the attorney-client privilege protects all of our confidential communications with the complainant, and we are duty bound not to disclose same. Partial disclosures of privileged conversations can be, and often are, construed as an abrogation of all privileged communications. Additionally, RPC 1.6 governs attorneys’ management of their clients’ confidential information, and this Rule has been construed to provide broader protections than those provided by the attorney-client privilege, further limiting our ability to respond publicly to the complainant. Mindful of the above-referenced Rules and restrictions, we are unable to comment further or to provide detailed descriptions of our conversations with the complainant. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court of New Jersey established a private, confidential, and expedient system for adjudicating fee disputes between attorneys and their clients — a process known as “fee arbitration.” A fee arbitration proceeding would afford the complainant precisely what he purports to be seeking — a “line-by-line” review of the charges he wishes to contest, and a confidential forum in which to voice his concerns. Pursuant to R. 1:20A-6 of the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey, on May 20, 2015, we provided the complainant with written notice of the amount in controversy, and the specific procedures he may follow to invoke his right to a fee arbitration. We are not permitted to initiate the proceeding — the right to fee arbitration lies exclusively with the client. To date, the complainant has not elected fee arbitration. As a result of the constraints imposed upon attorneys of this State from divulging confidential communications or information obtained from their clients, we are unable to provide any further public response. Thank you. Very truly yours, PATRICIA K. H[redacted]