The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion clarifying the circumstances under which a full-time judge, previously employed as counsel to a town supervisor, may preside over cases involving the town attorney. This opinion is particularly relevant for New York’s approximately 3,600 judges and justices, along with judicial hearing officers and candidates for judicial office.
The committee’s opinion responds to inquiries regarding the interpretation of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Co-chaired by Honorable Debra L. Givens and Honorable Lillian Wan, the committee consists of 28 judges, both current and retired.
In this specific case, the inquiring judge sought guidance about serving in the “town part” of the court where the town attorney represents the town in various legal matters. The judge had previously provided counsel and advice to the town supervisor but did not appear in court on behalf of the town and had limited involvement with legal documents.
According to the committee, a judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity. This principle is enshrined in 22 NYCRR 100.2. Furthermore, judges must disqualify themselves from cases where a specific rule or statute requires it, or where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The opinion cited relevant statutes and previous opinions, emphasizing that a judge’s prior role as a town attorney does not automatically disqualify them from presiding over cases involving the town attorney. Previous opinions from the committee have established that a judge can preside over cases where a former town board member appears, provided there are no conflicts of interest.
The committee concluded that the inquiring judge could preside over cases in the “town part” of the court unless involved in the subject matter of a case or otherwise unable to be fair and impartial. The committee highlighted that if a judge has any prior involvement as a lawyer in a matter, disqualification is permanent and cannot be remitted.
Additionally, the committee noted that if the judge becomes aware of a newly filed case with substantial connections to their previous work as counsel to the town supervisor, they must disclose this information on the record, including the extent of their prior involvement. After making this disclosure, the judge may continue to preside over the case if they can maintain their fairness and impartiality.
