Opinion 06-61

April 19, 2006

THIS OPINION HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY OPINION 09-100 TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SUGGESTS THAT A MERE TENANCY OR OFFICE-SHARING AGREEMENT, WITHOUT MORE, MAKES AN ATTORNEY THE "ASSOCIATE" OF A PART-TIME JUDGE UNDER RULE 100.6(B)(3). PLEASE CONSULT OPINION 09-100 BEFORE RELYING ON THIS OPINION.

Digest:         The partners and associates of a part-time lawyer judge may not practice in any part of that judge’s court or before any other judge, part-time or full-time, serving in that court. Any relationship or association between the judge and the firm must be completely severed before the judge’s former partners and associates may appear before any other judges in that court.

Rules:          Judiciary Law §§ 16 and 471; 22 NYCRR 100.6(B)(3); Opinions 05-124; 94-20 (Vol. XII); 88-50 (Vol. II); Joint opinion 88-17a and 88-25 (Vol. I); Matter of Harris v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 56 NY2d 365 (1982).

Opinion:

         A part-time lawyer judge who serves in a court where there are also full-time judges inquires about the propriety of the judge’s partners and associates appearing before the full-time judge(s) in that court. In addition, the judge asks, if his/her partnership relationship with the firm is severed, may the partners and associates of the firm immediately commence appearing before the full-time judge(s) in that court.

         This Committee has previously determined that the partners and associates of a part-time lawyer judge may not practice in any part of that court or before any other judge, part-time or full-time, serving in that court. Judiciary Law §§ 16 and 471; 22 NYCRR 100.6(B)(3); Opinions 05-124; 94-20 (Vol. XII); 88-50 (Vol. II); Joint Opinion 88-17a and 88-25 (Vol. I); Matter of Harris v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 56 NY 2d 365 (1982).

         Regarding the termination of the partnership relationship, this Committee has previously entertained an inquiry in which a part-time judge, who was also associated with a local law firm, inquired if the employment relationship with that firm was to change from a partnership to a landlord-tenant relationship, would such change enable the other members of the firm to practice in the judge’s court. This Committee concluded that, notwithstanding these minimal changes, there would not be an alteration in the “public perception that the judge remains associated in the practice of law with that firm.” Opinions 05-124; 94-20 (Vol. XII). The situation would be different, however, if the judge severs all ties with the firm, including, but not limited to, any landlord-tenant relationship. Id.