The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing the ethical obligations of a newly elected judge concerning attorneys who supported the judge’s campaign. The opinion clarifies whether the judge must disclose or disqualify themselves in cases involving attorneys who were listed as “supporters” on campaign materials or who hosted a single fundraising event for the judge.

The committee stated that a judge is not obligated to disclose or disqualify themselves simply because an attorney appearing in a case was listed as a supporter on the judge’s campaign materials. The committee referenced previous opinions, noting that merely allowing oneself to be publicly identified as a supporter does not raise reasonable questions about a judge’s impartiality, provided the judge believes they can remain fair and impartial.

Furthermore, the committee addressed the situation where an attorney hosted a single fundraising event for the judge. The opinion states that after election day, a judge is not required to disclose or disqualify themselves in cases involving an attorney who hosted one fundraising event for the judge, as long as that attorney played no other significant or ongoing role in the judge’s campaign. Prior to election day, such a relationship would have warranted disqualification, subject to remittal. However, the committee clarified that this obligation ceases after the election.

The Committee emphasized that a judge must always avoid the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. A judge must disqualify themselves in any proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The opinion references Rule 22 NYCRR 100.3(E)(1) which speaks to this issue. The committee also noted the importance of impartiality when exercising the power of appointment, specifically referencing Part 36 appointments, which must be based on merit, avoiding nepotism and favoritism.

The opinion also cites Rule 22 NYCRR 36.2(c)(4)(ii), which prohibits a judge from appointing certain campaign personnel, such as a campaign chair, coordinator, manager, treasurer, or finance chair, or their close relatives or associates, to Part 36 positions for two years following the judicial election. However, the current inquiry concerns attorneys who did not hold such prominent roles in the campaign.

Because the judge is not disqualified from hearing cases involving these attorneys, the committee stated that the judge may also appoint them to Part 36 positions, provided the appointments are made impartially and based on merit. The Committee referenced Rule 22 NYCRR 100.3(C)(3) in its analysis.

The opinion serves as guidance for the newly elected judge, helping to navigate potential ethical dilemmas arising from campaign support.