I appreciate the coverage that the NJBIZ gave our victory in the Opinion 39 case, Caped Crusaders of the Courts — N.J. Judges lift ban on advertising ‘Super Lawyer’ (sic) status.
But in the middle of his piece, Scott Goldstein tosses this little hand grenade into the story.
“For some, it was unclear how lawyers were selected to be on these lists, and there was speculation that lawyers whose firms advertise in the publications are more likely to be included.”
Who are these “some”? And upon what do they base their speculation? It’s never made clear. It’s just a faceless, baseless claim that floats alone in a sea of facts to the contrary.
The Special Master in this case reviewed thousands of documents, and listened to weeks of testimony about the selection processes employed by Super Lawyers and the other list publishers involved in this case. He concluded that there is no relation between advertising and selection to the list. The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the Special Master’s 300 plus page report and agreed with his finding that there is no pay-to-play element. In the more than two years this case went on, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office could not produce a shred of evidence to the contrary.
We had hoped this urban legend that lawyers can somehow buy their way onto our list had been put to rest once and for all with the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court.