The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued Opinion 26-15, clarifying that a judge is not automatically required to recuse themselves from a case simply because a local political party district leader is a litigant.

The opinion addresses a scenario where a Supreme Court Justice, several years into a 14-year term and outside of their election “window period,” learned that one of the litigants was a district leader. The judge had previously met with this district leader during their election campaign more than two years prior, and the leader had participated in the vote that established the judge as the party’s candidate. Furthermore, the district leader might have a role in future decisions regarding the judge’s candidacy.

The Justice disclosed these facts to both parties involved in the case, and one side requested recusal. The core question presented to the committee was whether the judge must disqualify themselves due to this connection. The committee referenced ethical rules, including 22 NYCRR 100.2 and 100.2(A), which mandate that judges avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that upholds public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality.

Specifically, disqualification is required if a judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E]) or in other legally mandated circumstances. However, the opinion also noted that when disqualification is not mandatory, the judge remains “the sole arbiter of recusal,” as established in People v Moreno.

The committee’s advice draws upon previous opinions. They have previously stated that a judge seeking party support for elective office does not need to recuse themselves solely because a political party’s county leader appears as an attorney, provided the leader is not actively involved in the judge’s campaign, and the judge can remain fair and impartial. Similarly, a judicial candidate who has gone before a political party’s judicial screening panel may preside when a panel member appears as an attorney.

In contrast, disqualification was advised in a situation where a member of a judicial screening panel, who had reviewed a judge’s application for party endorsement, was a partner in a law firm that was a party to a proceeding. However, in that instance, the judge was still a candidate within their “window period” for the election.

For the current inquiry, the committee distinguished the situation by emphasizing that the judge was elected over two years prior and is not within their election window period. They deemed it unreasonable to question an elected judge’s impartiality indefinitely in all matters involving a district leader.

The committee also found it premature to speculate about potential future needs for political support in hypothetical election campaigns, as the judge has not declared an intention to run for any known vacancy and has significant time remaining in their current term.

Therefore, the opinion concludes that a judge elected more than two years ago and not currently in their election window period is not obligated to disqualify themselves from a proceeding merely because a local political party district leader is a litigant. The judge may preside, assuming they can remain fair and impartial, despite the litigant’s past or potential future involvement in the judge’s candidacy for judicial office.