Opinion 03-13

March 3, 2003

Note: Opinion 15-51 advises that, "once the two-year period elapses, it should be within the judge’s discretion whether to disclose that the judge or his/her former law firm colleagues represented a client who is currently before the judge as a litigant." The present opinion has been modified to the extent inconsistent with this view (see Opinion 15-51).  Please see Opinion 15-51 for factors to consider in exercising this discretion.

Digest:         A judge who served as campaign manager for the District Attorney ten years ago, saw the District Attorney at two social functions during the last year, and administered the oath of office to the District Attorney as president of a professional organization need not exercise recusal nor disclose these contacts when the District Attorney personally appears in the judge’s court.

Rules:          22 NYCRR 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 89-13 (Vol. III); 89-88 (Vol. IV); 92-01 (Vol. IX); 92-14 (Vol. IX); 94-17 (Vol. XII); 95-05 (Vol. XIII)

Opinion:

         A County Court Judge who served as a campaign manager for the District Attorney ten years ago, saw the District Attorney at two social functions during the past year, and administered the oath of office to the District Attorney as president of a professional organization, asks whether disclosure of these contacts or recusal is required when the District Attorney personally appears in the judge’s court.

         At first glance it might appear that the situation presented is analogous or comparable to other situations, in which the Committee previously has stated its views concerning disqualifications. Thus, disqualification is required in matters involving former clients when a former client appears before the judge within two years after the representation ends, subject to remittal. After expiration of the two-year period, the judge should, for a reasonable period of time, disclose the prior relationship. After such disclosure, the judge may preside in the absence of a meritorious request for recusal and so long as the judge believes that he or she can be impartial. Opinions 89-13(Vol. III); 89-98(Vol. IV); 92-01 (Vol. III); 92-14 (Vol. XIII); 95-05 (Vol. XIII).

         However, in the present instance, the fact that professional ties between the judge and the District Attorney are remote in time and were not of a continuing nature, lead us to conclude that the situation is not one in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 22NYCRR 100.3 (E)(1). Thus, neither disqualification nor disclosure are required when the District Attorney personally appears in the judge’s court. In addition, the more recent social contacts between the judge and the District Attorney were of an incidental nature and do not dictate a different result.