Avvo Inc. petitioned the state Supreme Court on Wednesday to release names and basic information about a lawyers licensed in New Jersey, citing state law and New Jersey's "strong tradition of public access to government records."

The Seattle-based company's requests over the past several months have been rebuffed by the clerk of the Supreme Court, Stephen W. Townsend.

Townsend maintains that the state Open Public Records Act does not apply to the judiciary, and that its records are governed by Supreme Court rules, according to correspondence provided by Avvo.

According to the clerk, New Jersey's reason for refusing to give up its lawyers is simple: "Generally speaking, bar admission records are confidential," Townsend wrote Avvo on Dec. 20.

While it's hard to imagine why the identities of individuals given a monopoly on the practice of law would be subject to confidentiality concerns (as in, is this person really a lawyer, or is that just a pick-up line?), Clerk Townsend's position seems highly principled, doesn't it?  Well, maybe not.

According to Carolyn Elefant at law.com,

Consider this: In 2006, the New Jersey state bar launched a fee-based, online lawyer directory at its Web site.  The directory would allow consumers looking for lawyers to click on a live link directly to the firm's Web site.  The bar recognized that the fee-based listings would generate revenues for the state bar.  As New Jersey Bar spokesperson Barbara Straczynski explained in this article on Law.com, "if just 100 members sign up for links to their own sites, that's $10,000 right there."

Well that puts a different smell on it, something to which lawyers from Jersey are no doubt inured.

Before this starts up the love/hate relationship with Avvo, or the nagging questions over some of Avvo's newer initiatives with challenge the edges of ethics and malpractice, New Jersey's refusal to disclose the identities of its lawyers because it will interfere with the state's own ability to cash in is an affront to the public. 

If Jersey refused because it had issues with Avvo's ratings, like the issues it has with Super Lawyers, then it would be a fair question and a responsible position.  But if the only problem is has is cash (hey, it's not cheap to clean up toxic waste sites, you know), then it's just plain disingenuous.

Why is it always New Jersey?