In an interesting case emerging out of New Jersey, a state judge is faced with an ethics complaint, alleging him of improprely allowing his secretary to work in a remote model. The judge, however, is resisting these charges, positing that he was under the impression that he had the discretionary power to facilitate such a working arrangement. The defendant, under his own defence, submits that if any error has been committed, it was a mere “honest mistake”.
The case raises significant questions on the managerial liberties within judicial settings, especially at a time when remote work has become a norm rather than an exception. This case may indeed play a key role in defining or refining the protocols for such work arrangements in courts and by extension within the broader legal profession down the line.