Disbarred Attorneys May Now Apply for Reinstatement After Five Years | NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced a sea change in the law governing attorney disbarments. Ever since In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451 (1979), disbarment has been permanent. There was no opportunity to apply for readmission. Following on the Supreme Court’s ruling in In re Wade, 250 N.J. 581 (2022), which reaffirmed the Wilson rule but kicked off an inquiry as to whether disbarment law should change, the Court appointed a Special Committee, comprising persons from various walks of life, to study the issue.

The Special Committee recommended that disbarred attorneys be permitted to reapply for admission five years after disbarment. That recommendation, however, came with a host of conditions, including (among many other things) demonstrating rehabilitation and clearing the Supreme Court Committee on Character and other processes required of Bar applicants generally.

The Supreme Court largely adopted the recommendation of the Special Committee, though it altered the recommendation in certain respects. For example, the Committee suggested that disbarred attorneys be required to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (“MPRE”), but that whether an applicant should have to take and pass the New Jersey Bar examination be determined by the Supreme Court on a case-by-case basis. The Court, however, determined that taking and passing both the MPRE and the Bar examination would be mandatory for all applicants for readmission.

The Court adopted a new Court Rule, Rule 1:20-21A, which embodies the requirements of the new regime. Disbarred attorneys who wish to seek readmission, as well as those of us who represent candidates for admission before the Supreme Court Committee on Character should familiarize themselves with that new Rule.

As a result of the Court’s action yesterday, a new day has dawned for disbarred attorneys. The Court emphasized, however, that readmission will be far from automatic, that the burden of proof is on the applicant, and that protection of the public remains paramount.

"Hot Fun in the Summertime": Appellate Division Summer Parts

In an Order available here, Chief Justice Rabner announced the lineup for the Appellate Division's summer Parts. As has been customary, the "summer" runs not between the meteorological start and end dates for summer, nor from Memorial Day to Labor Day, but from June 16 through September 7....

The Supreme Court Confirms That Municipalities Can be Subjected to Sanctions for Frivolous Litigation

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This appeal presented the question of whether municipalities can be liable to pay sanctions for frivolous litigation, under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 ("the FLS"). In a 5-0 opinion written by Justice Fasciale (Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Hoffman did not participate), the Court affirmed, as modified, the decision of the Appellate Division that upheld the Law Division's imposition of FLS sanctions against the Borough....

The "Castle Doctrine"

State v. Bragg, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). A jury found defendant guilty of twelve charged counts, including attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, endangering, and two lesser-included offenses of harassment. Some of those charges involved the use of deadly force. Persons may not use deadly force if the can retreat with complete safety. But under the "castle doctrine," an exception to the general rule, a person "is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor." N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2)(b)(i). That doctrine derives from the common law....

No Arbitrariness in Rejection of Public Construction Bid That Failed to Include a Properly Signed, Required Consent of Surety

In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp., Contract T100.638, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This public bidding case resulted in a 5-2 split at the Supreme Court, the first non-unanimous ruling of the current Term. Justice Hoffman wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Fasciale authored the dissent for himself and Justice Pierre-Louis....