The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing the ethical obligations of a city court judge who has filed a lawsuit against the city they serve. Opinion 25-128 provides guidance on how this pending litigation impacts the judge’s ability to preside over cases involving the city’s legal representation.
The central issue arises from the fact that the city has retained a specific law firm to act as its corporation counsel. This same law firm is also defending the city in the federal lawsuit brought by the judge. The judge sought the Committee’s guidance on situations where the corporation counsel, through the city prosecutor, handles traffic and local code violations in the judge’s court.
The Committee emphasized that judges must avoid any appearance of impropriety and maintain the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, referencing Rule 100.2 and 100.2(A) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. Furthermore, judges are required to disqualify themselves from any proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, as outlined in Rule 100.3(E)(1) and Judiciary Law § 14.
Drawing upon prior opinions, the Committee reiterated the principle that when a judge is a party in litigation in their individual capacity, they must disqualify themselves from cases where the opposing party or counsel appears before them (Opinions 20-63; 18-139). This disqualification is subject to remittal, meaning it can be waived under certain circumstances.
The Committee further clarified that after the conclusion of the litigation, the judge must disclose the prior legal conflict for a period of two years when the former opposing party or counsel appears before them (Opinions 21-41; 20-63). After this two-year period, no further obligation exists, provided the judge can remain fair and impartial. The Committee also cited Opinion 21-41, which extended these principles to situations where other city agencies are named parties in litigation against the judge.
Applying these principles to the current scenario, the Committee advised that the judge is disqualified, subject to remittal, from all cases where the law firm representing the city appears, either directly or through the city prosecutor. This disqualification also extends to all cases where the city is a named party.
However, the Committee clarified that disqualification is not required in matters brought in the name of the People of the State of New York under the authority of the district attorney’s office, as long as the law firm in question is not involved in the litigation (Opinions 21-110; 19-92).
