seems like a lot of foolishness on all sides, but much ado about nothing in the end.

Appears to me that Rivera-Soto (a Republican, for the record) acted as any attorney representing his son would, vigorously representing his interests. I don't see any undue influence that was intended to affect the legal outcome or end result, I think he was just trying to move the wheels of justice along.

His son was threatened and he did what any good father would have done. Are we so under the grip of the thought police that we punish fathers for doing the right thing? Fifty years ago Rivera-Soto could have punched out the principal and no one would have cared.

Op-ed Justice Rivera-Soto Should Resign By Alan Y. Medvin New Jersey Law Journal May 25, 2007 Those of us who are fortunate enough to practice law in this state know, as Chief Justice James Zazalli recently stated, that the New Jersey Supreme Court "enjoys a national reputation of integrity and excellence." To preserve that reputation, it is my opinion that Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto should resign from the Court as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I think that the same qualities demonstrated by the justice that form the basis of the complaint filed against him by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct will, in all likelihood, prevent him from taking that action. So far, nothing has been proven, and the charges are just that, though many of the underlying facts have been admitted by the justice in the answer he filed with the ACJC. According to the complaint, Rivera-Soto lent the prestige of his office to advance private interests, failed to observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary might be preserved, created an appearance of impropriety, failed to act in a manner that promoted public confidence in the judiciary and exhibited conduct that brought his judicial office into disrepute. These would be serious allegations as to any judge at any level, but in the context of the sterling reputation of our Supreme Court, they are particularly troubling. The ACJC alleges that the justice used his position to influence actions and proceedings over the alleged bullying of his son by a high school football teammate. According to his lawyer, Rivera-Soto acted as would any loving and caring father concerned about the health and welfare of his son. Perhaps so, but the justice was not and is not "any" father. He was and is an associate justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. Other parents would not have been in a position to distribute a business card to a detective sergeant describing himself as a Supreme Court justice. Other parents would not have been in a position to have called the chief of police of the town in which they lived on the chief's cell phone. Other parents would not have been in a position to have called the assignment judge of Camden County (three times), nor would they have been in a position to have gotten the Camden County prosecutor on the phone. It is significant that the alleged improper conduct occurred over a period of about three months. It was not a one-time incident provoked by an understandable emotional reaction to circumstances. The justice certainly had time to consider his future conduct and reflect on his past conduct. And more important, he had ample time to think about how his conduct would be perceived by the public, and about how it would reflect on the Court on which he is privileged to sit. Our judiciary adheres to among the strictest ethical standards in the country. Our judges are not permitted to earn outside income. They are not permitted to attend political fund-raisers. Our Supreme Court has been subject to an unwritten but scrupulously adhered to policy of political balance. We, lawyers and nonlawyers alike, have an expectation that all judges, let alone justices of the Supreme Court, will act with a constant understanding of how their actions will affect the public's perception of the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. When a justice fails to act in such a manner, or acts with apparent disregard for the reputation of the Court, the justice should resign. Why now? Why not let the proceedings run their course? Good questions, but the answer lies not in repeating the mantra of "innocent until proven guilty." Based on the facts already admitted, Rivera-Soto identified himself professionally to numerous subordinates in what was a purely private matter. At best, his admitted conduct demonstrated extremely poor judgment. It is not likely that the testimony before the ACJC will cast this conduct in a better light. Only the justice, by ending this inquiry now, can show the respect for the Court it deserves. As Fran Wood stated in a May 16 column in The Star-Ledger, if Rivera-Soto crossed the line, it's not about him, it's about the Court. And for the Court's sake, he should remove himself from the bench rather than wait for the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, proceedings that will no doubt tarnish the reputation of the Court no matter what the ultimate outcome. Medvin, a partner with Medvin & Elberg in Newark, concentrates on representing plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases and served on the New Jersey Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee between 1986 and 2006.