At the public rules hearing before the New Jersey Supreme Court this week, Diana Manning, managing principal of Bressler, Amery & Ross, spoke on behalf of the State Bar Association in support of a rule change that would allow service of discovery demands and motions by email on opposing counsel, among other things.
In a March 29 letter, written by former New Jersey State Bar Association President Timothy F. McGoughran, the association detailed its feedback on the proposed rules, including support for proposed changes to New Jersey Court Rules 1:5-2, regarding manner of service, and 1:11-2, requiring a notice of appearance where an attorney initially appears in a matter.
The proposed changes would allow service of discovery demands and motions by email on opposing counsel and require contact information for pro se litigants when an attorney withdraws from litigation.
Manning, who is the treasurer of the NJSBA and is on track to become its president in 2028, said the changes would go a long way to streamline communications among parties and ensure smoother transitions when litigants decide to represent themselves in the middle of a case. She is also the first female managing principal of Bressler Amery, where she leads the firm’s appellate, business and commercial litigation, legal ethics, and compliance practice groups.
Manning said the state bar appreciates the clarification of the rule on when attorney fees should be filed under Rule 2:11-14, but recommended a clarification to ensure that all postremand scenarios are accounted for. The proposed rule would clarify that in a fee-shifting case, an application for attorney fees in connection with an appeal that is remanded should be made to the trial court at the conclusion of the remand proceedings.
“We also agree with the premise of the changes to Rule 4:14-2 to require that all attorneys have an opportunity to confer with nonparty organizations before depositions to ensure individuals who appear at depositions on behalf of those organizations have the requisite knowledge to provide information about the topics that will be explored,” Manning said.
Manning added that the state bar supports amendments to Rule 4:22-1 that would mirror federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a). The new rule, if adopted, would add that requests for admissions extend “to opinions” as well as facts.
“The state bar association appreciated the efforts of the members of the committee in researching, discussing and debating the potential rule amendments in an effort to improve the administration of justice in our court system,” Manning said. “The state bar association recognizes the importance of ensuring our rules to establish procedures that are clear, fair to all parties, and advance the interest of access to justice.”
Manning said her comments are offered in the spirit of cooperation to further these goals. She added that Tracey Goldstein, the chair of the NJSBA’s Special Civil Part Committee, would share the bar’s concerns on ejectment actions.
A subcommittee of the Civil Practice Committee also considered two issues related to ejectment actions—how to define an ejectment action and whether to align ejectment proceedings with the model for landlord-tenant matters by prohibiting claims for money damages in the action. Much of the public hearing concerned the ejectment issue, where Goldstein, a member of Goldstein Kelin, presented the state bar’s concerns on the amendments to those rules.
“Again, the New Jersey State Bar Association thanks the Supreme Court for publishing these reports and allowing the bar to submit comments and recommendations,” the letter said. “We commend the extensive volunteer efforts that contribute to the work of the various committees and hope that our comments represent a meaningful contribution to their debate.”
