The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing the circumstances under which a judge may attend court proceedings related to a lawsuit filed by their spouse. The opinion, designated as Opinion 25-91, clarifies the ethical considerations for a judge whose spouse has initiated legal action and where the judge has relevant knowledge of the case.
The inquiry before the committee involved a full-time judge who had engaged in communications with neighboring property owners regarding an ongoing dispute. These discussions proved unsuccessful, leading the judge’s spouse to file a lawsuit against the property owners. The lawsuit was filed solely in the spouse’s name, reportedly due to judicial security concerns. However, the judge’s prior communications with the defendants were referenced in court documents submitted by both parties.
The spouse’s attorney requested the judge’s presence at an upcoming court appearance, citing the judge’s “important information” relevant to the case and “because the [presiding] judge often conferences the case with litigants.” The judge then asked the committee if he/she could attend and provide information to the court as a co-owner of the marital home.
In its analysis, the Committee referenced several provisions of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. These include the requirement that a judge uphold high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary (22 NYCRR 100.1), respect and comply with the law, and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). The Committee also cited the prohibition against lending the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]) and the limitations on extra-judicial activities that could cast doubt on impartiality, detract from the dignity of judicial office, or interfere with judicial duties (22 NYCRR 100.4[A]-).
The opinion notes that while judges are permitted to bring actions on their own behalf and are not barred from testifying as fact witnesses, they must not testify voluntarily as character witnesses. The Committee also acknowledged prior opinions allowing judges to accompany close relatives or friends during court proceedings.
The Committee drew a parallel to Opinion 13-68, which involved a judge with an interest in a property subject to an eviction proceeding against the judge’s parent. In that instance, the Committee advised that the judge could attend the proceeding, testify as a fact witness, and participate to the extent legally permitted, even without being named as a respondent.
Applying these principles to the current inquiry, the Committee concluded that it is ethically permissible for the judge to attend court proceedings and participate to the extent legally permitted or directed by the court, given the lawsuit involves the judge’s spouse and their co-owned property, and the judge possesses information deemed relevant by both sides of the case.
