The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion regarding a judge’s obligation when a family member improperly invokes their judicial status. The committee’s guidance arises from a situation in which a judge’s adult child allegedly used the judge’s name to evade arrest.
In this particular case, the judge received a call from his/her adult child while the child was at a police station. The child requested the judge’s intervention, which the judge declined, citing the inappropriateness of such actions. Subsequently, the judge learned from law enforcement that the child had repeatedly mentioned the judge’s position in an attempt to avoid arrest, claiming that their parent could influence the situation due to their judicial status.
The opinion emphasizes the necessity for judges to maintain the integrity of their office and avoid any appearance of impropriety. According to the rules governing judicial conduct, judges must not allow others to use their position to advance personal interests or create the impression that they can influence the judiciary.
Upon learning of the child’s actions, the committee advised the judge to formally notify the child in writing to cease using the judge’s name in such contexts. The committee noted that it is standard practice for judges to take written action when their names or titles are misused, referencing previous opinions where judges were instructed to object in writing when their names were used without authorization, such as in promotional materials or unauthorized publications.
The advisory committee stated that the judge’s child had not only ignored prior informal warnings from the judge but had also made serious claims of judicial influence in an attempt to evade legal consequences. The seriousness of these statements warranted that the judge take action to prevent any further misuse of their judicial status.
The committee clarified that once the judge has communicated the written instruction to the child, there are no further obligations to take action. The details of how the notification is delivered are left to the judge’s discretion, although retaining a copy for personal records is suggested but not required.
