O’Boyle v. District I Ethics Committee, 421 N.J. Super. 457 (App. Div. 2011). Judge Axelrad’s opinion in this case begins as follows: “Rule 1:20-3(h) provides that in cases where a grievance that was found by the district ethics committee to allege unethical behavior was docketed and dismissed following an investigation, a grievant may appeal that decision to the Disciplinary Review Board (“Board”). In contrast, Rule 1:20-3(e)(3) allows the secretary of a district ethics committee to decline to docket a grievance against an attorney which the secretary, with the concurrence of a public member, has determined fails to allege conduct violative of the Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”). The issue presented on this appeal is whether Rule 1:20-3(e)(3), which precludes an appeal of an undocketed grievance, violates a grievant’s rights to due process or equal protection of the laws.” The panel concluded that there was no constitutional violation.
The opinion provides a detailed history of the disciplinary mechanism and its evolution. The entire structure was established under, and proceeds from, the Supreme Court’s constitutional power to regulate the legal profession, under Article VI, section 2, paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution, as Judge Axelrad noted. The Supreme Court expressly made undocketed grievances non-appealable. Plaintiff did not establish any constitutional violation in that regard.
Plaintiff conceded that due process does not “automatically and in all cases” require appellate review. Thus, the bare unavailability of an appeal of an undocketed grievance did not violate due process. Applying the rational basis standard of review (since the case did not involve a fundamental right), Judge Axelrad upheld the Rule based on In re Logan, 70 N.J. 222 (1976), and In re LiVolsi, 85 N.J. 576 (1981), where the Court rejected constitutional challenges to the non-appealability of attorney disciplinary and Fee Arbitration Committee decisions, respectively.
Plaintiff’s equal protection claim likewise failed. Again, the rational basis test applied, since no suspect class was involved. “Considering, in part, the available resources and the backlog of cases, the Supreme Court clearly had a rational basis for streamlining the disciplinary grievance intake procedure.” By requiring both “experienced counsel” and a public member to conclude that a grievance did not allege an RPC violation before docketing could be refused and any appeal foreclosed, the Court had “developed an efficient and expeditious method” that also ensured “that the public share the Court’s confidence in the integrity of the disciplinary system and be active participants.”