The New Jersey Attorney General has filed its Brief In Opposition To Our Petition. It is disappointing that despite having access to the details of our Petition, the Attorney General continues to misstate the Super Lawyers selection process, as well as details of our publications, policies and procedures.
We respectfully disagree with all of the positions taken by the Attorney General in the Opposition Brief, and our attorneys will file a formal response in the next few days.
In the meantime, the stay granted by the New Jersey Supreme Court continues in force.
The AG's Brief unfortunately propagates the CAA's elitist perspective reflected in Opinion 39 (peer review) and Opinion 33 (testimonials)...that consumers are too stupid to understand what lawyers do, and too imprudent to make wise, informed decisions in selecting a lawyer. Worse, the AG has taken the position consumers are so naive they must be shielded from the most rigorous and thorough peer review process imaginable -- that even when experts are prepared to give them critical information about an attorney's reputation, consumers should not be allowed to assess the information because someone may incorrectly believe it is an absolute guarantee of quality or success.
The Committee on Attorney Advertising's Response to our Petition for Review of Opinion 39 was to have been filed and served on our New Jersey attorneys on Friday November 3rd. Late that afternoon, our attorneys received a phone call from the Attorney General's office advising that their Response was not ready and that they would be asking the Court for yet another extension of time. This will be the third time that the Attorney General has requested more time. Although our attorneys have extended the courtesy to the Attorney General's office by not opposing their prior two requests for more time, our attorneys are now prepared to oppose this request. We believe the issues raised in our Petition require the Court's immediate attention. We will therefore continue to do everything possible to impart to the Court the sense of urgency we feel about the damage that Opinion 39 has caused to members of the bar and to the consumers of legal services.