New Jersey’s Supreme Court has adopted a new continuing legal education requirement for attorneys in that state that requires them to take one-credit hour per two-year reporting cycle in a technology-related subject. But the Supreme Court declined to join the 40 other states that have adopted the so-called duty of technology competence as set out […]
New Jersey’s Supreme Court has adopted a new continuing legal education requirement for attorneys in that state that requires them to take one-credit hour per two-year reporting cycle in a technology-related subject.
But the Supreme Court declined to join the 40 other states that have adopted the so-called duty of technology competence as set out in Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
While this makes New Jersey the fourth state to require some form of ongoing technology CLE for lawyers, it also makes it the first state to have considered and rejected adoption of the duty of technology competence.
Related: Another State Moves Towards Adopting Duty of Tech Competence and Mandatory Tech CLE for Lawyers.
The court did not explain its reasoning behind these two moves. Rather, on April 2, Judge Michael J. Blee, acting administrative director of the courts, issued a notice to the bar. The notice, titled “Attorney Responsibilities As To Cybersecurity & Emerging Technologies — New Requirement of One CLE Credit In Technology-Related Subjects,” stated:
“The Supreme Court has approved a new Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirement (one credit per two-year reporting cycle) in technology-related subjects for all New Jersey licensed attorneys. Further information on “technology-related subjects” and the timing of this new CLE requirement will be provided in a future notice.
“The Court’s action followed consideration of two proposals intended to strengthen awareness and improve practices of attorneys relative to the risks posed by artificial intelligence (Al) and other emerging technologies. Following review, the Court declined to adopt the other proposal, i.e., to add a comment to RPC 1.1 regarding an attorney ‘s responsibility, as part of competence, to keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. Both proposals were recommended by the Supreme Court Committee on AI and the Law.”
Last November, the New Jersey Supreme Court had requested public comments on these proposals to adopt a CLE requirement and to modify Rule 1.1. The proposed comment to Rule 1.1, which would have aligned with the ABA model rule, stated:
“To maintain competence, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.”
The changes were recommended by the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, a 31-member committee formed in 2023 t0 examine the legal and ethical implications of that artificial intelligence poses for court operations and the practice of law.
I have put in a call to the court for more information on why it rejected the change to Rule 1.1 but have not heard back. If anyone reading this has background, please let me know.
