Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

corporate lawcompliance
attorney

Related Cases

Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 465, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 14,149, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,829
View Case »
In re Riehlmann, 891 So.2d 1239, 2004-0680 (La. 1/19/05)
View Case »
James v. State, 695 So.2d 1229, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S223
View Case »
Heffernan v. Hunter, 189 F.3d 405
View Case »
Textron Inc. and Subsidiaries v. U.S., 560 U.S. 924, 130 S.Ct. 3320 (Mem), 176 L.Ed.2d 1219, 78 USLW 3375, 78 USLW 3678, 78 USLW 3687
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Jackman, 165 N.J. 580, 761 A.2d 1103

Facts

Steven B. Jackman, licensed in Massachusetts, worked as a Senior Associate at the New Jersey law firm Sills Cummis Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross from 1991 to 1998 without a New Jersey license. He withdrew from the New Jersey bar exam at the request of his managing partner, who advised him that it was not necessary to take the exam to practice corporate law in New Jersey. Jackman placed his Massachusetts license on inactive status in 1993 and continued to perform legal services in New Jersey, including preparing legal documents and counseling clients, without ever obtaining a New Jersey license.

Jackman was licensed as an attorney in Massachusetts in January 1985… He was employed at the Boston law firm of Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar until 1991 when he became employed as an associate at the New Jersey law firm of Sills Cummis Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross (Sills Cummis).

Issue

Did Steven B. Jackman engage in the unauthorized practice of law in New Jersey, and should his admission to the New Jersey bar be delayed due to this conduct?

This Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Steven B. Jackman's admission to the bar should not be withheld for failure to meet the requirements of good character and fitness for admission.

Rule

Under New Jersey Court Rule 1:21-1(a), no person shall practice law in New Jersey unless they hold a plenary license to practice in the state. The unauthorized practice of law is a serious offense that reflects negatively on an applicant's fitness for admission.

New Jersey Court Rule 1:21–1(a) expressly provides: [N]o person shall practice in this State unless that person is an attorney holding a plenary license to practice in this State…

Analysis

The court determined that Jackman's actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law, as he engaged in legal activities in New Jersey without the required license. Despite his claims of reliance on his managing partner's advice, the court emphasized that the responsibility to understand and comply with bar admission requirements lies with the applicant. Jackman's failure to inquire about his licensing status further demonstrated a lack of diligence in adhering to the rules governing legal practice in New Jersey.

Jackman's practice of law at Sills Cummis for almost seven years without a New Jersey license was in direct conflict with the plain terms of Rule 1:21–1(a).

Conclusion

The court concluded that Jackman's certification for admission to the New Jersey bar should be withheld until January 2, 2001, to underscore the importance of compliance with legal practice requirements.

The Court adopts the recommendation of the Committee on Character that certification of Steven B. Jackman for admission to the bar be withheld, but with modification.

Who won?

The State of New Jersey prevailed in this case, as the court upheld the recommendation to delay Jackman's admission due to his unauthorized practice of law, reinforcing the standards for character and fitness required for bar admission.

We hold, therefore, that delaying Mr. Jackman's certification for admission until January 2, 2001 shall serve sufficiently to underscore to the candidate the need to appreciate and abide by the laws, rules, and procedures governing attorneys admitted to the bar of this State.

You must be