New Jersey Adopts UBE, New Admission By Motion And Metadata Provisions

An important announcement from the New Jersey Supreme Court is highlighted below

Following the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Uniform Bar Examination, the Court has determined to adopt the UBE as a replacement for New Jersey’s existing bar examination format, beginning with the February 2017 administration of the exam. New Jersey joins 21 jurisdictions that have already adopted the UBE.

And

After thorough deliberation, the Court adopted admission by motion, subject to certain important restrictions: Applicants for admission to the New Jersey bar by motion must hold a juris doctor degree from an ABA-accredited law school; demonstrate fitness and character to practice law; attain a qualifying score on the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination or pass an approved law school ethics course; have practiced for five of the last seven years in another jurisdiction; have previously passed a bar examination in another jurisdiction; be admitted in a jurisdiction that would extend a reciprocal license by motion to New Jersey lawyers; and complete a course on New Jersey ethics and professionalism as a condition precedent to admission. Admission by motion removes only the requirement that certain applicants take and pass the New Jersey bar examination. All applicants, whether by motion or by exam, must still be certified by the Committee on Character and meet all other criteria for admission.

Finally

The Court addressed an important ethical question raised by New Jersey practitioners in the context of their contemporary practice: whether a lawyer who receives an electronic document may, consistent with the rules governing attorney ethics, review metadata in that document.

“Metadata” is embedded information in electronic documents that is generally hidden from view in a printed document. Metadata may reflect such information as the author of a document, date(s) on which the document was revised, tracked revisions, and comments inserted in the margins, among other things. This embedded electronic information may include privileged information or other potentially objectionable, private or proprietary information.

Following a careful review, the Court adopts the recommendations of the Working Group on Ethical Issues Involving Metadata in Electronic Documents, and makes a number of amendments to the Court Rules regarding electronic documents and metadata. The measures are designed to protect sensitive client data, clarify attorneys’ professional obligations, and foster education programs so that the legal community may be better equipped to meet the unique challenges inherent in exchanging documents electronically — a modern reality that is ubiquitous in the contemporary practice of law.

(Mike Frisch)