Scarinci: Who Watches the Watchers?

The Roman poet Juvenal once asked, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?—“Who watches the watchers?”

This question has echoed through centuries of governance, law, and politics. At its heart lies the problem of accountability: how do we ensure that those entrusted with power wield it ethically, and that the guardians of justice themselves are subject to justice?

The New Jersey Appellate Division’s recent decision in the case of Pfeiffer v. Platkin brings this long-standing dilemma into sharp relief.  Unfortunately for Pfeiffer and for those seeking accountability, the Appellate panel ruled that “misrepresentation” is not grounds to invalidate a resignation.

A Prosecutor Pressured

James L. Pfeiffer, a former Superior Court judge, was appointed Warren County Prosecutor in 2020 by Governor Phil Murphy and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term. His tenure was cut short in April 2024, when he was confronted with allegations of misconduct and told by Attorney General Matthew Platkin to resign by the end of the day.

As set forth in court documents, Platkin allegedly “demanded [plaintiff]’s resignation based on a report that listed four sustained findings against him,” and informed plaintiff he was superseding the WCPO and “reliev[ing] him of his duties.” According to Pfeiffer, Platkin “refused to discuss the basis for his demand” to resign. Additionally, he “repeatedly” told him: “This [is] not a discussion; I have made my decision – you are done,” and “If you do not resign things will get worse for you.” Platkin also reportedly stated the decision regarding Pfeiffer’s future employment was the “[AG]’s alone.”

During the discussion, Pfeiffer was told he could have a hearing, “but that would not matter as [the AG] would hire the hearing officer, who would make findings of fact, but ultimately the final decision was [the AG’s].” According to Pfeiffer, Platkin “repeatedly threatened . . . that if [plaintiff] did not resign ‘things will get worse for [him].'”

By evening, Pfeiffer had texted his resignation to First Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay Ruotolo, thanking the Governor and Attorney General for the opportunity to serve.

Days later, Pfeiffer attempted to withdraw his resignation, claiming it was coerced and based on misrepresentation. In support, he claimed it was done while “having no due process rights and without being given a complete copy of the report, a formal notice of charges and hearing forum, the time and opportunity to understand the charges or consult with an attorney regarding the allegations against him.” The Attorney General, Pfeiffer argued, had no authority to demand his resignation or to suggest that the outcome of a hearing was predetermined.

The Legal Fight

Pfeiffer subsequently filed a four-count complaint challenging the validity of his resignation and the Attorney General’s supersession of the Warren County Prosecutor’s Office. In his complaint, Pfeiffer alleged that Platkin misrepresented the removal process for county prosecutors, and falsely claimed the final decision was his alone. In reality, the Governor is the only one authorized to remove county prosecutors, which must be for-cause and after a public hearing.

While the trial court dismissed most of his claims, it reinstated one count on reconsideration: that his resignation was invalid because it was obtained through misrepresentation.

In a decision issued on November 5, 2025, the Appellate Division reversed. It held that New Jersey law recognizes only duress or coercion—not misrepresentation—as grounds to invalidate a resignation. The panel emphasized that Pfeiffer, as both a county prosecutor and a former judge, could not reasonably have relied on the Attorney General’s false statements about the removal process. Any reasonable person in his position, the court said, would have known that due process rights existed and that the Governor, not the Attorney General, was the final decisionmaker.

The appeals court concluded that while the Attorney General’s statements were indeed misrepresentations, Pfeiffer’s reliance on them was unreasonable as a matter of law. Accordingly, count three of his complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

The Ethical Question

The Appellate Division’s ruling may be legally sound, but it fails to resolve the deeper ethical question: what happens when the state’s top law enforcement officer misstates the law to pressure a subordinate into resignation? The court’s reasoning—that Pfeiffer should have known better—places the burden on the individual official to resist. However, in doing so, it sidesteps the conduct of the Attorney General himself.

This is where Juvenal’s question becomes urgent. The Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the state, entrusted with ensuring the fair and uniform enforcement of the law. If that officeholder misrepresents the law to achieve a desired outcome, who ensures accountability?

The Governor has power to remove, but in this case, the Governor did not intervene. The courts can review such abuses of power, but only within the narrow confines of existing legal standards. The Legislature can investigate, but political realities often blunt such oversight.

We the people can also be the watchers: The public can create significant external pressure for reform and accountability. However, we can only do so when people like Pfeiffer bring potential abuses to light.

Donald Scarinci, a regular New Jersey Globe columnist, is the managing partner at Scarinci Hollenbeck.  His firm filed an Amicus Brief in the Norcross matter on behalf of the NAACP State Conference, New Jersey State AFL-CIO, and the New Jersey Building and Construction Trades Council and presented an argument at the appellate division hearing last week.

Statement of Attorney General Matt Platkin: “There are far too many mistakes in this bogus article to possibly respond to each, but let’s be clear: James Pfeiffer resigned as Prosecutor after a lengthy investigation finding both that his office misappropriated grant funding and that he interfered with a State investigation into that misuse. The allegations in his complaint are categorically false, as we have maintained since this meritless lawsuit was filed. And now the Appellate Division rightly found that even if the allegations were true, they do not support any kind of viable legal theory. We look forward to bringing this frivolous case to a close.”