The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing the disclosure and disqualification requirements for a judge who had a peripheral role in a judicial association’s pro bono legal representation.
The judge, serving as the recording secretary for a recently incorporated judicial association, participated in the incorporation process by signing documents and providing biographical information. The association was represented by outside counsel on a pro bono basis, but the judge had no direct contact with the attorneys and did not select or retain the law firm.
The judge raised concerns about whether disclosure or disqualification would be necessary when attorneys from the law firm appeared in their court and whether the pro bono work should be reported on the judge’s annual financial disclosure report.
According to the opinion, judges must avoid any appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. A judge must disqualify themselves from any proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The Committee referenced previous opinions stating that individual members of a board of judges do not need to disqualify themselves from matters involving law firms representing the board, regardless of whether the representation is pro bono. The Committee distinguished between a law firm representing a “board of judges” versus representing “the board members individually.”
The opinion also cited a prior advisory, which recognized that the president of a judicial association might have a unique relationship with the association’s pro bono counsel, potentially appearing more personal than to other members. However, in that specific case, the judge was not required to disqualify or disclose when other members of the same law firm appeared, as the lawyer in question did not and would not appear before the judge.
In this instance, the Committee concluded that because the inquiring judge was only peripherally involved in the law firm’s pro bono representation of the judicial association, their impartiality could not be reasonably questioned. Therefore, neither disclosure nor disqualification is required when the law firm or its attorneys appear before the judge.
Regarding the financial disclosure report, the Committee directed the judge to the Unified Court System’s Ethics Commission for guidance on whether the pro bono work needed to be reported, as compliance with Part 40 reporting requirements is mandatory.
