Opinion ID: 2258708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Encouragement of Diversion

Text: According to the State, Rule 1:20-9 advances the salutary goals of resolving minor ethical matters through diversion in lieu of further disciplinary proceedings. We recognize the value of encouraging attorneys to cooperate with an investigation, remedy past harm, and take measures to prevent a future lapse of judgment or competence. However, the State's interest in achieving a matter's speedy resolution does not justify infringing a grievant's free exercise of truthful speech. Brooks, supra, 678 A. 2d at 145. The goal of the disciplinary system  protecting the public from unethical attorneys  is not served by suppressing accurate statements about actual misconduct, even if minor. Furthermore, a broad reading of the rule would preclude a grievant from publicly expressing his or her belief that the disciplinary system treated the respondent attorney's misconduct too lightly. Criticism of such a quasi-governmental body is entitled to the widest room for discussion [and] the narrowest range for its restriction. State v. Miller, 83 N.J. 402, 412, 416 A. 2d 821 (1980) (quoting Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530, 65 S.Ct. 315, 323, 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 (1945)).