The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing the ethical considerations of a judge appointing the child of a judicial hearing officer (JHO) to a court attorney position. The committee concluded that such an appointment is permissible, provided it adheres to principles of impartiality and merit-based selection.
The inquiry originated from a judge presiding in a trial court of limited jurisdiction who sought guidance on hiring an applicant who is the child of a retired judge serving as a JHO in the Supreme Court within the same county. The judge also questioned whether this appointment would pose ethical concerns if they were later considered for appointment as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court.
The Committee referenced several sections of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, including the requirement to avoid impropriety and promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity (22 NYCRR 100.2 and 100.2[A]). It also cited the rule against unnecessary appointments, emphasizing the need for impartiality, merit, and the avoidance of nepotism and favoritism (22 NYCRR 100.3[C][3]). Additionally, the committee considered the prohibition against appointing relatives within the fourth degree of relationship to state-paid positions within the Unified Court System (22 NYCRR 8.1).
The committee clarified that Rule 8.1 does not apply in this scenario, as the prospective court attorney is not a relative of a judge within the same court. The JHO, while performing judicial functions, is not a judge in the same context as defined by the rule. The opinion also noted that the limitations in Section 100.3(C)(3) are not applicable because there is no blood or marital relation between the judge and the prospective appointee.
The Committee emphasized that while the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct place limits on the appointment of a sitting judge’s relatives, a judge can generally hire or appoint individuals to positions within the court system, provided it is otherwise permissible to do so.
Given that the inquiring judge found the applicant to be highly qualified after conducting interviews, the committee determined that the appointment is ethically sound. The opinion explicitly states that there is no ethical impropriety even if the judge later assumes judicial office in the same court where the JHO is assigned. The applicant, if appointed, may continue in the position even if the inquiring judge ascends to a higher judicial office.
