This blog is now being mirrored on Blogger at http://barristerblog.blogger.com/

Edward R. Wiest
12/19/2002 11:46:36 PM - [Link]

Light at the End of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels

A committee of the New Jersey Supreme Court has recommended the Garden State change its bar rules to permit the admission by waiver of experienced attorneys and abolish the rule requiring active members of the New Jersey bar to maintain a real office (with a real desk, real meeting room, and real person answering the telephone) in New Jersey. The December 11 press release announcing the committee's recommendations has links to all relevant documents. It is of interest that the president of the New Jersey State Bar Association (always a strong supporter of the status quo)was quoted as stating in response to these recommendations that "Increasing [the number of lawyers authorized to practice in New Jersey] by admitting more lawyers does not improve the quality of services to which the public has access."

I endured the two day New Jersey bar examination in 1985 to facilitate my work for a firm which then maintained both New York and New Jersey offices. In fact, I ceased to retain any knowledge of substantive New Jersey law as soon as the exam was completed and don't recall ever having signed a New Jersey pleading before my practice moved to Massachusetts in 1986. Nevertheless, I have continued to pay New Jersey bar fees to forestall the need to appear for two days of re-examination or seek temporary admission should I reappear in the state someday. The proposed New Jersey amendments would bring the state into line with ABA recommendations looking to facilitate attorney mobility and multijurisdictional practice. Hopefully, the New Jersey authorities will adopt revised rules which will spare others the need for the two-day trip to New Brunswick I made some years ago.

Edward R. Wiest
12/18/2002 11:24:16 AM - [Link]

Massachusetts Makes $2MM Fee Demand in Microsoft Case

Massachusetts AG Tom Reilly has requested a $2 million fee award in the Microsoft case, even before prosecuting its appeal. The AP report on the fee application notes that the states are using the rates of private attorneys as the lodestar for the fee application.

My guess is the Commonwealth will make a profit on the case (even after taking into account indirect costs of benefits, overhead, the maintainance of One Ashburton Place, etc.). As a Massachusetts taxpayer, I'm pleased some good came out of what proved to be a futile effort. As a Microsoft customer, I hope this payment doesn't increase the allegedl overpricing from which the state attorney generals claimed we needed protection.

Edward R. Wiest
12/18/2002 9:51:27 AM - [Link]