The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued Opinion 26-65/26-66, addressing the propriety of a judge hiring a law student as a summer intern when the student receives a stipend from a private law firm for a public service internship. The opinion provides guidance to judges faced with this ethical consideration.

The committee opined that a judge may hire a law student who receives a stipend from a private law firm for a public service internship, provided the judge adheres to specific conditions. First, the judge must ensure the intern is insulated from any cases in which the sponsoring law firm is involved. Second, the judge must disclose both the insulation measures and their underlying rationale.

The opinion emphasizes that the judge must determine, using their discretion, their ability to remain fair and impartial in matters involving the law firm. If the judge is confident in their impartiality, they may preside over cases involving the firm after implementing the necessary insulation and disclosure protocols.

The inquiry arose from two judges who posed similar questions regarding the hiring of first-year law students for summer internships. In both scenarios, the students were admitted to a private law firm’s “accelerated” recruitment program. As part of this program, the firm provides students with a regular paid internship in 2027 and a $25,000 stipend for an internship in summer 2026. One judge has a single case with the sponsoring law firm, while the other has none.

The committee noted that a judge must consistently avoid the appearance of impropriety and promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, as outlined in 22 NYCRR 100.2 and 100.2(A). Additionally, judges are prohibited from allowing relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment, as stated in 22 NYCRR 100.2(B).

The opinion draws upon Opinion 22-181, which addressed a similar scenario involving a law student working part-time at an investment bank with cases before the judge. The committee reiterated that the judge must disclose the student’s relationship with the bank and insulate the student from those cases.

The disclosure obligation ends when the judicial internship concludes.