The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued Opinion 26-40, clarifying the circumstances under which a judge may continue to preside over cases involving a charity named in a deceased relative’s obituary. The opinion states that a judge is not required to recuse themselves or disclose their connection to the charity, provided they can remain fair and impartial.
The opinion addresses a scenario where an obituary for a judge’s relative requested donations to specific charities in lieu of flowers. The obituary also mentioned the judge by name and title, and provided details about memorial gatherings. The inquiring judge sought guidance on whether they could preside over cases where one of these named charities appeared as a party, counsel, or amicus.
The committee emphasized the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety and maintaining public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. Judges are bound by rules that prohibit them from allowing family, social, or political relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment. Disqualification is required in any proceeding where a judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Citing previous opinions, the committee noted that a judge is not obligated to disclose or recuse themselves when an attorney makes a charitable donation in honor of the judge’s deceased relative, as suggested by the obituary. The committee reasoned that it is generally not reasonable to question a judge’s impartiality simply because an attorney made such a contribution. This is because friends and acquaintances of a bereaved individual often make such acknowledgments out of sympathy or politeness, reflecting varying cultural traditions.
The current opinion distinguishes itself by considering whether the situation changes when the entity appearing before the judge is the charitable organization itself, rather than the individual making the donation. However, the committee concluded that this distinction does not alter the outcome.
The committee referenced prior advice stating that a judge who contributes to a not-for-profit legal services organization does not need to disclose or disqualify in matters involving that organization, as long as impartiality can be maintained. Similarly, when a judge, acting as a co-trustee of a relative’s charitable trust, authorizes the trust to make donations to entities that regularly appear before the judge, disclosure or disqualification is not required when a recipient of the trust’s donations appears in court.
The committee found it even less reasonable to question a judge’s impartiality in the current scenario, where a not-for-profit organization receives or is likely to receive charitable contributions from third parties in honor of the judge’s deceased relative. Therefore, the opinion concludes that if an obituary requests support for a relative’s selected charities, the judge need not disclose or disqualify when one of these charities appears before them, provided their impartiality remains intact.
