The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing the ethical considerations for a part-time judge when attorneys from a law firm employing the judge’s non-attorney co-judge appear in court. The opinion, designated 25-90, clarifies the circumstances under which such appearances are permissible, providing guidance based on the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.
The central question addressed is whether a part-time judge should recuse themselves from cases where attorneys from the law firm employing their co-judge, who works as an assistant or paralegal, are involved. The committee concluded that, generally, such appearances are permissible.
The committee based its opinion on several sections of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, including those addressing the avoidance of impropriety and the promotion of public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (22 NYCRR 100.2 and 100.2[A]). The opinion also references the specific rule concerning part-time judges and the practice of law by their co-judges’ partners or associates (22 NYCRR 100.6[B][3]). This rule explicitly prohibits a part-time judge from allowing law partners or associates of another judge of the same court, who is permitted to practice law, from practicing in their court.
However, the committee emphasized that this prohibition applies only when the co-judge is “permitted to practice law.” In this scenario, the co-judge is a non-attorney working as a paralegal. The opinion distinguishes this situation from previous opinions, such as Opinion 94-108, where a part-time town judge who was also a paralegal was advised not to preside over cases involving their law firm. In that instance, the other town judge, not affiliated with the firm, could hear the cases.
The committee also addressed concerns raised in Opinion 09-03, which discussed non-attorney part-time judges performing services traditionally performed by lawyers. While that opinion stated that such judges are subject to the same restrictions as lawyer judges, the committee clarified that this does not alter the conclusion in the present inquiry. The committee noted that there was no indication that the co-judge in question, working as a paralegal, would be making court appearances or performing services traditionally reserved for lawyers.
Furthermore, the committee stated that a judge’s impartiality could not “reasonably be questioned” simply because the opposing law firm employs his/her non-attorney co-judge as an assistant/paralegal (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]). The committee deferred to the judge’s discretion, stating that the judge need not disqualify unless they doubt their own ability to be fair and impartial.
In conclusion, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics determined that, absent any indication that the non-attorney co-judge is performing services that a lawyer traditionally performs, the inquiring judge may permit attorneys from the law firm employing the co-judge as an assistant/paralegal to appear in court before them. The opinion provides important clarification for part-time judges navigating potential conflicts of interest arising from their co-judges’ employment.
