The maintenance of professional diligence and client communication is a core requirement for any practicing lawyer. For Blackwood, New Jersey attorney Albert W. Allison (Attorney No. 102032014), a series of procedural failures in client representation led to a formal disciplinary ruling by the state’s highest court.
Effective December 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an order of reprimand against Allison, following a stipulation of discipline by consent regarding his handling of legal matters.
The Core Misconduct: Neglect and Fee Disputes
The disciplinary case (Docket No. DRB 25-213) originated from a grievance filed concerning Allison’s litigation practice. The Disciplinary Review Board found that Allison violated several New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC):
1. Gross Neglect and Lack of Diligence
The Court found that Allison violated RPC 1.1(a) and RPC 1.3 by failing to act with the necessary thoroughness and promptness required in a legal matter. This neglect often leaves clients in a state of legal limbo, potentially jeopardizing their standing in court proceedings.
2. Communication Breakdowns
A significant portion of the misconduct involved RPC 1.4(b)—the failure to keep a client reasonably informed. Effective representation relies on transparency; when an attorney stops providing updates on the status of a case, it constitutes a breach of professional duty.
3. Conduct Prejudicial to Justice
Allison admitted to violating RPC 8.4(d), which involves engaging in conduct that hinders the proper administration of justice. This often occurs when an attorney’s inaction forces the court or opposing counsel to expend unnecessary resources.
Mandatory Restitution and Penalties
Unlike a temporary suspension or disbarment, a reprimand serves as a public mark on an attorney’s permanent record. However, the Court also imposed specific financial conditions on Allison to rectify the harm caused:
-
Refund of Retainer: Allison was ordered to submit proof to the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) that he refunded a $5,500 retainer fee to his client, Reginald Weeks, within thirty days of the order.
-
Administrative Costs: He is required to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for all administrative costs and actual expenses incurred during the prosecution of the ethics matter.
-
Condition of Practice: He must comply with any additional conditions imposed by the Disciplinary Review Board within sixty days.
Clarifying Identity: Distinguishing Legal Professionals
It is important to differentiate between attorneys with similar names to ensure accurate records.
-
Albert W. Allison: A litigation attorney in Blackwood, New Jersey, admitted to the bar in 2014, who is the subject of this 2025 reprimand.
-
Alison Albert: A family law attorney in Morris County, New Jersey, who maintains an active practice in good standing with Wilson Family Law.
Conclusion: Accountability in the Legal Profession
The reprimand of Albert W. Allison reinforces the New Jersey Supreme Court’s commitment to holding attorneys accountable for the “day-to-day” responsibilities of their practice. While less severe than a loss of license, a public reprimand ensures that future clients are aware of an attorney’s past failures in diligence and communication. For those looking to verify the standing of a New Jersey lawyer, the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Search remains an essential tool for public transparency.
