Stuart Rabner, the chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, elevated a judge to a seat on the appellate court last month after learning of a consensual sexual relationship with a court staffer.
Jeffrey R. Jablonski was serving as the assignment judge in Hudson County when he began a romantic relationship with a woman who was a direct report to him. After Rabner was informed of the situation, he chose to promote Jablonski to a more influential, better-paying position and later issued a public statement that appeared to intentionally obfuscate the reason for the move.
The relationship between Jablonski and his court staffer, whose name is being withheld by the New Jersey Globe to protect her privacy, began sometime after the judge’s wife passed away several months ago while on a ski trip in Utah.
Over the last six weeks, the New Jersey Globe spoke with more than a dozen judges, court employees, and Jablonski’s personal friends, who confirmed the existence of a relationship.
“It was common knowledge at the courthouse,” a sitting Hudson County judge said.
Peter McAleer, a spokesman for the judiciary, pointed to the court’s policy on consensual dating in the workplace.
“Consensual dating relationships between Judiciary employees are generally not the Judiciary’s business,” the policy states.
But in the event that a relationship involves a supervisor and a subordinate, the supervisor “must promptly inform his or her immediate superior of the personal relationship so that the Judiciary may take action to change the reporting relationship between the individuals.”
“This is necessary in order to eliminate any appearance of, or actual, impropriety in the workplace,” the policy states.
In the case of an assignment judge, the immediate superior is Rabner.
There is no indication that Rabner or the Administrative Office of the Courts conducted an existing relationship investigation, which is considered a best practice in other branches of government. That happens frequently when the supervisor, in this case Jablonski, holds considerable power over the other person in the relationship.
Jablonski was the one who authorized the woman’s initial hiring in Hudson County five months after he became assignment judge and then recommended her promotion thirteen months later.
A sitting judge in a different vicinage said Rabner had other options beyond promoting Jablonski and paying him more money.
“The chief (justice) could have transferred Jablonski to another county. He didn’t have to assign him to the appellate division,” said another sitting judge in a different vicinage. “I feel as though this taints him, maybe unfairly so.”
Perhaps more alarming is that Rabner and his staff have circled the wagons and dodged specific questions about the timeline of the reporting, something that may have assured other judiciary employees – and the public — that the policy was appropriately implemented.
Instead, the court wanted all questions funneled through McAleer.
Rabner responded to an email from the New Jersey Globe directing all questions to McAleer. Glenn A. Grant, the acting director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), didn’t respond to emails at all; instead, McAleer responded on his behalf.
Jablonski initially responded to a call to his personal cell phone with a text message indicating he would call back later. After waiting two days, additional calls were placed, along with a text message.
“I’ve been directed by the AOC to ask you to please contact Pete McAleer with any inquiries you might have,” Jablonski said.
In separate emails, Grant, and Jablonski were asked when the relationship began and when it was reported. Rabner was asked when he became aware of this and whether his decision to elevate Jablonski to the appellate court had been made before or after that. No response was received, either from Rabner or McAleer.
Rabner’s statement announcing Jablonski’s promotion in November skipped any reference to an employment issue that necessitated a reassignment to a different court or vicinage.
“He has faced enormous personal challenges this past year and handled them with grace while he balanced the demands of the position of assignment judge,” Rabner said. “I am confident he will continue to serve with excellence in the appellate division.”
In New Jersey, the chief justice alone selects the entire appellate division, along with all assignment judges and presiding judges.
There was also no answer from Rabner about whether the public should have been informed.
“Judges and staff are not permitted to do interviews with the press,” stated McAleer, who asked that Jablonski not be contacted on his personal cell. Still, Jablonski responded to a text message after McAleer’s request.
“The arrogance of people who believe they are accountable to no one is concerning,” said a ranking state legislator outside Hudson County who asked not to be identified. “The public has a right to more information about issues like this. It’s fair to call out Rabner if he misled the public.”
Grant rejected a request for a list of all judges who have reported relationships with judiciary employees in 2024.
“Relationship information is private and not public, at least in my view,” Grant told McAleer in an email in which the New Jersey Globe was – perhaps inadvertently — included. McAleer, whose response to the email was also forwarded to the Globe, told Grant he agreed.
The circumstances of Rabner’s moves in Hudson County are already controversial.
Jablonski didn’t announce his departure, and Rabner never advertised the opening for a new assignment judge and never sought any other applicants. Instead, he covertly moved David Katz, a family court judge from Essex County and a friend, into the Hudson assignment judge post.
That led to criticism over Rabner’s apparent rush to name Katz without allowing other judges to apply for Jablonski’s job.
Katz met with Rabner quickly before while the New Jersey State Bar Association was on a junket to Ireland and “pledged his fealty to the chief justice…agreed to do his bidding in order to get the job,” a Hudson judge said.
In Hudson, there is some concern about the optics of elevating a white judge from Livingston who has never been a civil or criminal court judge to take the top slot in a county where 72% of the population is non-white. Thirteen of the fifteen assignment judges named by Rabner are white.
This also puts Katz, not Jablonski, on center stage when a new $350 million courthouse opens next year. Jablonski has played an active role in planning the opening, and some courthouse watchers were surprised he was willing to remove himself from that process.
Katz raised some eyebrows soon after taking the Hudson position. Sworn testimony in an attorney ethics complaint in June of 2024 obtained by the New Jersey Globe, Katz was asked about his quest to become an assignment judge. He may have intentionally misled a Supreme Court ethics hearing officer about his incessant pursuit of an assignment judge post.