On Monday, November 11, 2024, the New Jersey Globe reported that David Katz, the newly appointed Hudson County Assignment Judge, may have provided misleading testimony during a Supreme Court ethics hearing. The allegations stem from remarks made by Katz in June 2024 concerning his pursuit of the assignment judge position.
In his sworn testimony, Katz was directly questioned about whether he had ever publicly campaigned for the role of assignment judge. Katz replied, “No. Never publicly campaigned,” and further clarified that he had not discussed his aspirations with any legislators or officials. However, he did not mention Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, the sole authority responsible for appointing assignment judges in New Jersey. This omission has raised concerns among legal experts and peers about the accuracy of his statements.
William S. Greenberg, the special ethics adjudicator overseeing the hearing, noted that the process of appointing assignment judges does not involve public campaigning, as assignments are made solely by the chief justice. Greenberg’s comments came in response to an objection raised by Timothy McNamara from the Office of Attorney Ethics.
Reports indicate that several individuals familiar with Katz’s ambitions, including judges, claimed he had actively sought the assignment judge position on multiple occasions. Prior to Rabner’s recent appointment of Katz to replace Jeffrey Jablonski—who was elevated to the appellate court—Katz had expressed his interest in the role on four separate occasions since 2020. His attempts included bids for positions that arose following retirements in Essex and Union counties, as well as in Bergen County.
Concerns about Katz’s credibility were echoed by a sitting Superior Court judge from Hudson County, who spoke anonymously due to fears of retaliation. This judge compared Katz’s testimony to a scenario in which a person answers a question partially truthfully but is ultimately misleading. The judge suggested that if Chief Justice Rabner were to review Katz’s testimony, he might perceive it as evasive. However, the judge speculated that Rabner may hesitate to report Katz to the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct so soon after appointing him.
The appointment process for Katz has already drawn criticism. Some members of the judicial community were surprised by the lack of transparency surrounding Jablonski’s departure, which was not publicly advertised, and the absence of an open application process for potential candidates. Critics argue that this has raised questions about the integrity of the selection process.
In a notable aspect of his testimony, Katz claimed he had experienced feelings of being followed and expressed concerns for his safety while serving as a judge in a divorce case. He recounted two incidents that he deemed suspicious. One occurred after dining at a restaurant, where he noticed a lone car leaving quickly after he and his wife entered their vehicle. The second incident took place during the COVID-19 pandemic while he was at an outdoor restaurant, where he observed a car that seemed to remain parked for an extended period with a man inside.
Katz further alleged that attorney Paul Clark had knowledge of his personal routines, suggesting that Clark used his activities to criticize judges in a podcast. He asserted this was part of a broader narrative about judges frequenting country clubs with acquaintances.
Despite multiple requests for comment, Katz did not respond to inquiries, and his spokesperson, Peter McAleer, indicated that the matter was linked to an ethics issue related to family court.
Source: New Jersey Globe
