We offer the New Jersey consumer valuable information regarding New Jersey law on:

     Consumers are linked in the right direction if they have a grievance, are experiencing fraud, need to download NJ tax forms, or if they need a directory of New Jersey lawyers.

Link to directory of New Jersey legal resources

    You can find New Jersey lawyers regarding workers compensation, bankruptcy, criminal defense, landlord/tenant, lemon law, military affairs, municipal court (DWI), personal injury and real estate in our  directory. 

  Link to directory of New Jersey Lawyers

      New Jersey Lawyers can link to New Jersey Court Opinions, Decisions, Statutes and Rules of Evidence here.

         Choosing the right lawyer to handle your legal problem is a challenge. It is a challenge, however, that you must prepare to handle through research and open communication with any one of the New Jersey Lawyers you consider hiring to represent you. New Jersey law is complex and the best New Jersey lawyers will be able to fully answer all your questions regarding your legal problem . An experienced lawyer can provide a framework for you to examine all potential outcomes of your case. People often begin looking for a New Jersey lawyer to represent them when they are in crisis. They may be dealing with a family death, serious injury, divorce or criminal charge. Many times it is easiest to choose a New Jersey lawyer who is friendly. You need more! Your search for the right New Jersey lawyer is a challenging process but one that should yield substantial rewards. Begin the process as soon as possible to avoid losing your right to sue under a statute of limitation or other deadline and that evidence is preserved. 

           There is no substitute for a face to face meeting , if possible, when trying to select an attorney. You can not only learn about the lawyer’s credentials but also determine whether you can form a good working relationship. At the meeting, provide a clear summary of your legal problem and the assistance you seek from the New Jersey lawyer. Come prepared with all relevant documents and a summary of all important dates, times, names, addresses to provide the basic background information. The New Jersey lawyer should be able to describe the degree of communication afforded his or her clients. Is there shared decision-making? Is there an open door policy? The best New Jersey lawyers are willing to explain procedures and answer questions. Understand what is expected of you and what your role would be during the course of the representation. The importance of creating a comfortable working relationship with your New Jersey lawyer cannot be underestimated. Teamwork is the key to the relationship and achieving the goals agreed upon by you and your lawyer. The best New Jersey lawyers, after hearing the facts presented by the client and other needed inquiry, should have an idea about the strengths and weaknesses of the client’s position and the likelihood of achieving the goals as set forth

         In the end, it is the United States Supreme Court that best summarized the lawyer-client relationship. The best New Jersey lawyers adhere to this description of the relationship:

"There are few of the business relations in life involving a higher trust and confidence than that of attorney and client, or, generally speaking, one more honorably and faithfully discharged; few more anxiously guarded by the law, or governed by sterner principles of morality and justice; and it is the duty of the court to administer them in a corresponding spirit, and to be watchful and industrious, to see that confidence thus reposed shall not be used to the detriment or prejudice of the rights of the party bestowing it."

     It can be confusing when trying to choose an attorney to meet your legal needs. You may have never needed an attorney before, so you ask a friend to refer you to someone or you look in the Yellow Pages where hundreds of attorneys are listed. But how do you choose one attorney over another and how can you be sure that you will choose the right attorney to handle your particular legal problem?

     Finding the right attorney is to the benefit of both you and the attorney you choose. That is why the Supreme Court of New Jersey has directed the Board on Attorney Certification to administer the attorney certification program in an effort both to protect consumers from false advertising and to raise the level of competence of attorneys in this State. This program is designed to help you make an informed decision when seeking and selecting a lawyer.

     The Board on Attorney Certification was established by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 1980 for the purpose of helping consumers find attorneys who have a recognized level of competence in particular fields of law. Attorneys may be designated by the Supreme Court as "certified attorneys" if they: are able to demonstrate sufficient levels of experience, education, knowledge and skill in a specific area of law or practice; have passed a rigorous examination; and have been recognized by their peers as having sufficient skills and reputation in the designated specialty.

     The Supreme Court, through recommendation by the Board, currently certifies attorneys in four areas: civil trial law, criminal trial law, matrimonial law, and workers' compensation law.

     An attorney must meet the following requirements to become certified:

• has been a member in good standing of the New Jersey Bar for at least five years;

• has taken a specific number of continuing legal education courses in the three years prior to filing an application;

• demonstrates substantial involvement in preparation of litigated matters;

• demonstrates an unblemished reputation by submitting a list of attorneys and judges who will attest to the applicant's character and ability; and

• passes a written examination covering various aspects of practice in the designated specialty.

(as posted at the New Jersey Board on Attorney Certification Website, http://www.njbac.org )

As a courtesy to our readers, New Jersey lawyer, John F. Renner, Esq. provides Monday morning coffee - a short commentary providing insight on timely legal topics of interest. Thanks for having Monday Morning Coffee with us!

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT EXPANDS PROTECTION OF MOTORISTS FROM UNFOUNDED REQUESTS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSENT TO SEARCH OF VEHICLE COMMONLY REFERRED TO BY NEW JERSEY LAWYERS AS THE CARTY PROTECTIONS DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO RACIAL PROFILING ON THE HIGHWAYS OF NJ

New Jersey lawyers who review the constitutionality of a vehicle stop and subsequent search often review the opinion of State v. Carty where the NJ Supreme Court held that the New Jersey Constitution requires law enforcement to have a “reasonable and articulable suspicion that the search of the vehicle will produce evidence of criminal activity before requesting a driver’s consent to search following a routing traffic stop.   Merely advising the motorist of the right to refuse consent (which is another constitutional requirement) is not sufficient.   In proper context, Carty can place restrictions in the police from even requesting a consent search unless the circumstances, viewed in their entirety, would allow a fair and reasonable inference that a search of the vehicle will result in obtaining evidence of criminal activity.

New Jersey lawyers now can include not just motorists stopped on routine traffic offenses within the ambit of this protection but also motorists who break down on the roadside.    Occupants of disabled vehicles have the same protection.   The case involved a disabled vehicle on the New Jersey turnpike where, in 2004, State Troopers arrived on the scene and after asking questioning and receiving inconsistent stories asked for permission to search the vehicle.   The trial court found that the police acted merely on a hunch and what began as rendering assistance to stranded motorists turned into an “investigative detention” in which the motorists clearly knew they were not free to leave. 

Legal Quote of the Week:

The right to be alone- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.  

Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

NEW JERSEY LAWYERS REPRESENTING INJURED WORKERS SEEKING COMPENSATION BENEFITS CAN NOW OBTAIN AN AWARD FOR TINNITUS- RINGING IN THE EARS- WITHOUT A SHOWING OF RELATED HEARING LOSS AS LONG AS THE INJURY OCCURRED WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL DURING THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT STANDARD.

New Jersey work injury lawyers now have a ruling from the New Jersey Superior Court- Appellate Division- holding that tinnitus is an impairment as defined under the NJ Workers’ Compensation statute.   An impairment allows for the award as a permanent partial disability.   Impairment requires, however, a basis in demonstrable medical evidence and the restriction of a bodily function.   A material lessening of an injured employee’s working ability is one criteria used to determine if the test is met.

Tinnitus- persistent ringing in the ears- is a compensable impairment if the required proof is brought forward for the Judge of Compensation in New Jersey regardless of whether hearing loss also accompanies the work injury.  Like an other workers’ compensation case in NJ, the injured employee must show that tinnitus in fact occurred to a material degree due to exposure to harmful noise in the workplace over a period of time or in a single incident that is backed up by objective medical testing.  

After a five day trial before a Judge of Compensation, a finding was made that the tinnitus existed after review of medical evidence, that it was significant and causally related to the worker’s environment at work (loud construction drilling between 1999 and 2002).   Such condition is a qualified disability, according to the Appellate Court opinion, even though the claimed hearing loss by the employee associated with tinnitus did not meet statutory requirements for compensation.  

Legal Quote of the Week:

"It is error alone which needs the support of government.  Truth can stand by itself. "

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1785

NEW JERSEY LAWYERS REFLECT UPON RECENT SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, HOLDING THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENTAL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A REAOSNABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN OPEN FIELDS THAT ARE USED FOR THE CULTIVATION OF CROPS. 

New Jersey lawyers representing the accused in NJ often analyze the actions of the government to determine any potential constitutional violations that may have occurred during the course of the investigation and ultimate arrest of a defendant.  As part of the that analysis, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution under Article 1, paragraph 7 protect citizens against unreasonable police searches and seizures by requiring warrants issued upon probable cause unless the search falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.   In the case of an open field owned by an accused, the initial inquiry involves whether that person has a constitutionally recognized reasonable expectation of privacy in that area that would require protection of the Fourth Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution.

The home is traditionally recognized as having a reasonable expectation of privacy attached to it.  This protection extends to the curtilage of the home which in New Jersey is typically defined as the land adjacent to the home including walkways, driveways and porches (ie. areas tied to the usage of the home).  Curtilage does not include land used for activities such as cultivation of crops, whether or not that land is fenced or posted against trespass.  As the New Jersey Court of Appeals noted, the New Jersey Constitution can provide New Jersey lawyers an additional basis to argue for a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched but none could be found to exist regarding fields used for to grow crops. 

In the case before the Court, law enforcement used a helicopter to fly over an open field owned by the accused for aerial observation of the area.  The area of observation was separated from the home by a row of weeds growing into the field.  In short, there was no support for a finding that this field or its use was intimately tied to the home.

Respectfully submitted,
JFR

Legal Quote of the Week:

One has to strike at the jugular and let the rest go.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Speeches, 1913.