John J. Robertelli v. New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (075584), 134 A.3d 963

In a personal-injury suit, two defense lawyers allegedly directed a paralegal to access and “friend” the represented plaintiff (Hernandez) on Facebook and collect non-public information from his account.
Hernandez filed a grievance with the District II-B Ethics Committee; the DEC Secretary (with a public member’s concurrence) reviewed only the face of the complaint and declined to docket it, concluding the allegations, if true, would not constitute unethical conduct.
Hernandez’s counsel then wrote to the Director of the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) asking the OAE to review and docket the matter; the Director investigated and filed a complaint with District XIV Ethics Committee alleging multiple RPC violations.
Plaintiffs asked the Director to withdraw the complaint, arguing Rule 1:20-3(e)(6) barred Director review after a Secretary’s non-docketing; the Director refused and plaintiffs sued in Superior Court to enjoin the OAE.
Trial court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Appellate Division affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certification to decide (1) whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to enjoin the OAE and (2) whether the OAE Director may review and prosecute after a DEC Secretary declines to docket.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Superior Court had jurisdiction to enjoin OAE’s disciplinary prosecution	Superior Court can interpret court rules; plaintiffs sought declaratory relief about rule interpretation, not to resolve a disciplinary case	Disciplinary matters fall exclusively within Supreme Court authority; direct challenge to prosecution intrudes on disciplinary system	Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enjoin the OAE; dismissal affirmed
Whether Rule 1:20-3(e)(6) bars the OAE Director from reviewing/prosecuting after a DEC Secretary declines to docket a grievance	Rule’s “no appeal” language prohibits further action by Director; a post-declination letter to Director is an impermissible appeal	Rule bars appeals to DRB only; Director has independent, broad discretion under R.1:20-2(b) to investigate any information and may act even if Secretary declined to docket	Director may, in his discretion, review and prosecute grievances after a Secretary declines to docket; Rule 1:20-3(e)(6) precludes appeals to the DRB but does not limit Director’s authority

R.M. v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, 185 N.J. 208 (discusses Supreme Court’s role overseeing attorney discipline)
State v. Rush, 46 N.J. 399 (establishes exclusivity of Supreme Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction)
Toft v. Ketchum, 18 N.J. 280 (treats filings with ethics bodies as filings with the Supreme Court)
Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (describes ethics committees as arms of the court)
In re Cammarano, 219 N.J. 415 (purpose of disciplinary system: protect public and promote confidence)
In re Gallo, 178 N.J. 115 (disciplinary process goals and public confidence)