The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion regarding the hiring practices of judges, specifically addressing whether a new judge can employ a law student who previously interned at the judge’s former law firm. The committee concluded that such hiring is permissible under certain conditions.
In the advisory opinion, designated as 25-06(B), the committee clarifies that a judge may indeed hire a law student as a judicial intern, even if the student previously interned at the judge’s prior law firm. However, this arrangement is subject to the judge’s obligation to disqualify themselves in cases involving the law firm, especially if the judge’s impartiality could be questioned.
The committee emphasized that if the judge intends to provide an opportunity for remittal of disqualification, full disclosure is required. This entails the judge revealing both their own previous connection to the law firm and the intern’s ties to it. The parties involved in any legal matter must then have the opportunity to decide whether they wish to waive the judge’s disqualification.
Notably, the committee pointed out that if the intern had personal involvement with any case at the law firm, the intern must be insulated from that specific matter. This insulation cannot be waived or remitted, ensuring that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained.
Judges generally face disqualification from presiding over cases involving their previous law firms for two years following the end of any financial relationship. The opinion reiterates that the burden of disqualification rests on the judge, even if the parties are aware of the conflict and do not express concern.
The hiring of interns, particularly unpaid ones, does not typically raise ethical dilemmas, according to past opinions. The committee has stated that the anti-nepotism rule does not apply in situations involving unpaid internships.
In summary, the committee has affirmed that a judge can employ a law student intern from their former law firm, provided that the necessary disclosures and disqualifications are observed. This opinion aims to clarify the ethical boundaries governing judicial employment practices while ensuring that public confidence in the judiciary remains intact.
