- The Supreme Court is requesting comments on the attached proposed amendments to Rule 1:21-2 (“Appearances Pro Hac Vice ”) as developed by the New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (LFCP) in collaboration with its Board of Trustees. The proposed amendments are intended to reinforce the existing rule to clarify that attorneys who are administratively ineligible to practice in the State for failure to pay their annual Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection assessment, shall not be permitted to appear pro hac vice . This shall include any attorney whose license was revoked pursuant to R . 1:28-2(c). The LFCP was prompted to propose this amendment after two attorneys whose licenses were revoked pursuant to R . 1:28-2(c) obtained Orders granting pro hac vice admission. Please send any comments in writing by Friday, March 13, 2026 , to: Hon. Michael J. Blee, Acting Administrative Director Comments on Proposed Rule 1:21-2 Amendments Hughes Justice Complex; P.O. Box 037 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0037 Comments may also be submitted by email to Comments.Mailbox@njcourts.gov . The Supreme Court will not consider comments submitted anonymously. Thus, those submitting comments by mail should include their name and address and those submitting comments by email should include their name and email address. Comments submitted in response to this notice are subject to public disclosure. Document Date: Feb. 9, 2026 Publish Date: Feb. 9, 2026 Download Notice
- File Notice - Proposed Amendments to Rule 1-21-2 - Appearances Pro Hac Vice - Comments Requested by March 13, 2026
- Attorney Certification in support of rule 1:21-11 pro bono hours: landlord tenant
- Attorney Certification in support of hours performed in adult guardianship matters
- M.G.F. v. M.G.M., et al. FD-07-1995-23 Trial July 10, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GUY C. JACKSON (18-08-1159, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2030-22 Appellate July 14, 2025
- RQ FLOORS CORP. VS. LIBERTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATES INC., ET AL. (L-8840-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2134-22 Appellate July 14, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JELUDY TAVAREZ-RODRIGUEZ (22-04-0566, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0713-23 Appellate July 14, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DEAN S. LEE (01-05-1497, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1315-23 Appellate July 14, 2025
- A.E. VS. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ETC. (DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1644-23 Appellate July 14, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EARL ROSS (22-06-1827, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1705-23 Appellate July 14, 2025
- THOMAS BONFIGLIO, ET AL. VS. BOROUGH OF SEA BRIGHT, ET AL. (L-1883-17, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2253-23 Appellate July 14, 2025
- LINDSAY PALMISANO VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, ET AL. (L-2084-23, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2455-23 Appellate July 14, 2025 Summary A-2455-23 In this appeal, the court was asked to consider whether plaintiff, a municipal court administrator, is an employee of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), thereby allowing her to assert a claim against the AOC under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Following the court's review of various statutes and court rules, it concluded that if the Legislature had intended municipal court administrators to be considered employees of the AOC, it could have expressly done so. Instead, the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 2B:12-10(a), specifically establishing that municipalities "shall provide for an administrator" of municipal courts and pay "their compensation." Moreover, N.J.S.A. 2B:12-1(a) provides "[e]very municipality shall establish a municipal court," not the AOC. Although the AOC provides certain oversight and supervision of municipal courts, that does not equate with the AOC establishing an employer-employee relationship with plaintiff. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUDY THORPE (MA-008-22, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0634-22 Appellate July 15, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LAMONT CRYMES (18-10-1638 AND 18-11-1224, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3783-22 Appellate July 15, 2025
- VICTOR ASSOCIATES, LP VS. RICHARD CARTER (LT-000887-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0475-23 Appellate July 15, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RASHAD A. JOHNSON (21-01-0069, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0878-23 Appellate July 15, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ARTURO I. ALOMAS (16-08-0560, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1327-23 Appellate July 15, 2025
- BREIA RENNER VS. GLOUCESTER COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (L-0534-23, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1528-23 Appellate July 15, 2025
- SHERRI ADLER, ET AL. VS. EAST BRUNSWICK BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-4816-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-3443-23/A-3506-23 Appellate July 15, 2025