Blog Posts

New Jersey Supreme Court To Review Amendment To RPC 1.2(d) To Permit Lawyers To Counsel And Assist Clients With Regard To New Jersey Medical Marijuana Laws

As discussed in our February 14, 2016 blog post, the New Jersey State Bar Association established an ad hoc committee to review the ethical issues raised under New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”) 1.2(d) for an attorney representing a client in connection with the sale, distribution, or use of medical marijuana as authorized under the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (the “NJ Marijuana Act”).

In a notice to the bar released May 19th by Judge Glenn Grant, the acting administrative director of the courts, the Judiciary said the Advisory Committee on Professional Conduct had proposed a change to RPC 1.2 to address this ethical quandary and found that lawyers may provide services to clients seeking to comply with the NJ Marijuana Act while the amendment is under consideration by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  The Committee’s slight majority based its decision on public policy encouraging lawyers to provide legal services to businesses navigating the complex regulatory framework of the NJ Marijuana Act.

Despite being vigorously divided, the Committee unanimously agreed that RPC 1.2(d) should be amended to expressly allow lawyers to counsel and assist clients with regard to the NJ Marijuana Act, provided that they also advise their clients about conflicting federal law.  More importantly, the Committee further agreed that, given the current uncertainty regarding the proposed amendment, lawyers who assist clients to comply with the NJ Marijuana Act should not face discipline while the Court considers amending RPC 1.2.

The Committee presented the matter to the New Jersey Supreme Court and respectfully requested that the Court adopt an amendment to NJ RPC 1.2(d) to provide:

A lawyer may counsel a client regarding New Jersey’s marijuana laws and assist the client to engage in conduct that the lawyer reasonably believes is authorized by those laws.  The lawyer shall also advise the client regarding related federal law and policy.

The Administrative Office of the Courts is accepting comments on the proposed rule change until June 20.

The Committee’s decision to recommend amending RPC 1.2(d) is the right one.  Attorneys should be allowed to represent businesses seeking to comply with the NJ Marijuana Act without the possibility of facing ethics charges.  However, attorneys would be wise to wait until the New Jersey Supreme Court approves the proposed amendment before explicitly advertising legal services relating to the NJ Marijuana Act. Our firm will continue to provide updates as this situation develops.

Eric’s varied litigation and transactional experience includes complex commercial/ chancery/federal matters, preliminary injunctions, partnership/corporate shareholder actions, will & probate litigation, guardianships, bankruptcy, bankruptcy court litigation and corporate dissolutions, business transactions & corporate law, asset recovery/repo, debt collection & judgment enforcement, receiverships, foreclosure, fraudulent transfer litigation, attorney & professional ethics, entertainment and intellectual property, internet and website development law, real estate disputes and restrictive covenants, trial & appellate practice in state and federal courts. Eric has also been appointed by the court to serve as counsel to an alleged incapacitated person in a guardianship matter and is a candidate for judicial appointments in complex commercial litigation matters as a special fiscal agent, receiver and provisional director.
Enjoy Our Posts ? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter or subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Contact Information

411 Hackensack Avenue
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Phone Number
(201) 870-4938


Awards: Best Law Firms Metro Region New Jersey • New Jersey Super Lawyers • Best Lawyers in America • 201 Bergen Magazine • Avvo Top 10 Lawyer

© 1997 – 2023   Shapiro, Croland, Reiser, Apfel, & Di Iorio, LLP. All rights reserved. All rights reserved. Advertising Disclaimer: This web site constitutes an ADVERTISEMENT. Before making your choice of attorney, you should give this matter careful thought. The selection of an attorney is an important decision. If you believe this web site is inaccurate or misleading, you may report same to the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Hughes Justice Complex, CN 037, Trenton, N.J. 08625. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Call Now Button