The legal profession demands not only competence in the courtroom but also integrity in daily life. Lawyers are expected to uphold the law both in their professional duties and personal conduct. When those standards are breached, even outside the scope of legal practice, disciplinary action can follow.
Edward Glen Johnson, DRB October 23, 2024, Supreme Court: January 14, 2025
In January 2025, the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) and the New Jersey Supreme Court reprimanded Hackensack attorney Edward Glen Johnson. The issue stemmed from client management concerns and the misuse of a law firm name. The DRB criticized the ethics panel for dismissing parts of the case, reaffirming Johnson’s sanctions.
The attorney continued to use a firm name and letterhead that violated RPC 7.1(a) (no misleading or false communication) and RPC 7.5(a) (law firm names must include full or last names of lawyers and not omit required naming elements).
Client management deficiencies included inadequate communication and failure to document fee agreements in writing.
Truthfulness in Advertising:
Lawyers must not use communications (including firm names) that contain material misrepresentations or omit facts necessary to avoid misleading the public.
Law Firm Names and Letterheads:
Firm names must include the surname of one or more lawyers currently or formerly with the firm; trade names must not violate the RPC. Use of purely descriptive, geographic, or non-lawyer names without required lawyer surnames is prohibited unless allowed under certain exceptions (e.g. retired partners or deceased lawyers).
In re Jander, Docket No. 21‑240 (N.J. Supreme Court Jan. 10, 2023)
Jander pleaded guilty in Superior Court to unlawful possession of a handgun without a proper permit, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39‑5(b)(1).
The DRB found this criminal conduct violated the RPC as it reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
The DRB’s decision recommended formal discipline in accordance with Rule 1:20‑13(c)(2) of the New Jersey Court Rules
The Supreme Court concurred with the DRB’s recommendation and imposed a public censure as the appropriate ethical sanction. The decision was issued in early January 2023
The court also ordered Jander to reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics for administrative and actual costs as outlined in Rules.
The case demonstrates how criminal conduct, even if non-violent or not involving dishonesty or fraud, can trigger disciplinary action.
It clarifies that fitness to practice law includes good judgment, responsibility, and respect for the law not just technical legal skill.
The Jander case underscores that being a lawyer is not just a job it’s a public trust.
Even off-duty missteps can cost attorneys their professional reputation and standing. Upholding the law is not just what lawyers do it’s who they must be.