Attorney Seeks Reinstatement of Ethics Complaint Against Union City Municipal Court Judge Carlos H. Acosta Jr.
On Monday, June 15, 2026, Hudson County View reported that attorney James Mescall formally requested that the New Jersey Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) reinstate a judicial ethics complaint against Union City Municipal Court Judge Carlos H. Acosta Jr., or alternatively, file a new complaint.
Mescall's request stems from his belief that Acosta, who was previously suspended from practicing law, has been allowed to return to the bench despite admitted ethical violations.
Mescall's initial ethics complaint against Judge Acosta was filed in November 2020. Following the ACJC's receipt of exhibits in October 2020, the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) initiated an investigation in February 2021. Mescall subsequently provided the OAE with additional evidence of alleged unethical conduct spanning from January 2021 to February 2024.
However, by September 2024, Mescall expressed frustration to ACJC Chair Carmen Messano, citing a lack of action or response to his submissions regarding the ethics complaint. He noted that Acosta remained on the bench as a Union City Municipal Court Judge, despite nearly four years passing since the complaint was filed.
The article details that Acosta himself acknowledged the potential for embarrassment and erosion of public trust in the judiciary due to his continued presence as a judge. This statement was made in December 2024 when Acosta was seeking a reduction in his disciplinary measures.
His legal troubles escalated when, in November 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered his suspension from practicing law in the state, effective the following month. This action was a consequence of a related attorney ethics complaint filed against him by the OAE.
The Supreme Court's determination found Acosta to have engaged in gross neglect, a pattern of neglect, lack of diligence, failure to expedite litigation, and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and actions prejudicial to the administration of justice.
These findings were reportedly based on stipulations Acosta entered into with the OAE, as well as recommendations from the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB). The DRB had initially proposed a one-year suspension of his law license, followed by a two-year probationary period.
Following the DRB's decision, Acosta resigned from the bench. However, he continued to contest the imposed discipline, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during his hearing. It was not until March 3, 2025, over five years after the initial complaint, that ACJC counsel informed Mescall that no action would be taken on his complaint because Acosta no longer held a judgeship.
Despite this, the report indicates that Acosta has since been reappointed to the bench and, according to Mescall's complaint, is now serving as Chief Judge of the Union City Municipal Court. However, the article clarifies that the title of Chief Judge is actually held by Judge Lilia Munoz, though Acosta does indeed sit on the Union City bench as a municipal court judge.
Mescall expressed strong disapproval of Acosta's return, stating, "Apparently, Acosta no longer believes that his service on the bench is an embarrassment which 'erodes public trust in the judiciary.' As he stipulated, Acosta is a dishonest and unethical attorney and judge."
He further argued that Acosta's reappointment, particularly after the Supreme Court affirmed his conduct involving dishonesty and actions prejudicial to justice, tarnishes the reputation of the entire New Jersey judiciary and casts it into dispute. Mescall suggested that the public might conclude that honesty and truthfulness are not prerequisites for attaining a judgeship in the state.
A footnote in Mescall's letter highlights that Union City Mayor Brian Stack, who also serves as a state Senator, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, responsible for approving Superior Court judges statewide. Mescall questioned the appropriateness of Mayor Stack and the Union City Commissioners allowing constituents to be subjected to an "admittedly dishonest and unethical judge."
He further criticized the ACJC's previous inaction, characterizing it as enabling an "admittedly dishonest and unethical judge" to remain on the bench for years and to be reappointed after resigning in disgrace.
Mescall's current letter to the ACJC serves as a formal resubmission of his 2020 complaint or a request for a new judicial ethics complaint to be considered. He has requested a swift hearing, emphasizing that an "admittedly dishonest and unethical judge" has been permitted to return to the bench.
Source: Hudson County View
