Opinion 22-138

October 27, 2022

Digest: A judge may attend the wedding of an attorney who regularly appears in the judge's court, provided the attorney is not on trial before the judge at the time of the event. For two years thereafter, the judge must disclose his/her attendance as a wedding guest when the attorney appears in the judge's court.

Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(B); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 12-104; 12-90; 11-125; 11-101; 07-141; 06-44; 92-22.

Opinion:

         A judge asks if it is ethically permissible to attend the wedding of an attorney who regularly appears in the judge's court, and, if so, whether the judge must thereafter make any disclosure. Although the judge considers the attorney's parent a friend, the relationship between the judge and the attorney appears to be primarily professional; they do not engage in social interactions, other than an occasional text message. The judge notes that the attorney had an unpaid internship with the judge during law school.

            A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). Therefore, a judge must not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]), and must disqualify in matters where "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned" (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).

         We have said a judge may attend the wedding of an attorney who regularly appears before him/her, and give the couple a gift, but should not attend when the attorney is on trial before the judge (see Opinions 06-44; 12-90; 92-22 ["A judge may socialize with attorneys but should avoid any private social activity with attorneys appearing before the judge during actual trial days"]). Here, too, the judge may attend and give a wedding gift. As always, the judge must "avoid creating even the appearance of impropriety, or discussing any pending matters" at the event (Opinion 07-141 [citation omitted]).

         We previously advised that disclosure of a judge's attendance as a guest at an attorney's wedding is required for a "reasonable period of time," with the exact length of time left to the judge's discretion based on all the circumstances presented, including the judge's overall relationship with the attorney (see Opinions 11-125 fn 1; 11-101; 06-44).¹ Even when the judge and the attorney were otherwise mere acquaintances, we "deem[ed] it advisable" to disclose, given the "particularly significant and personal nature" of a wedding (Opinion 06-44; cf. Opinion 12-104 [noting that "attending an attorney's wedding as a social guest clearly suggests a social relationship between the judge and the attorney"]).

         On further consideration, we are troubled that requiring disclosure for an undefined "reasonable period" might potentially leave judges, attorneys, and others uncertain about how long is proper under the circumstances. Going forward, we conclude judges should disclose their prior attendance for a two-year period after attending an attorney's wedding as a guest. A set period will be simpler for judges to remember and apply, and two years is a standard we have used regularly since the Committee's inception.

         We therefore conclude that the judge may attend the wedding of an attorney acquaintance who regularly appears in the judge's court, but thereafter must disclose such attendance for a period of two years when the attorney appears. Opinions 12-90, 11-125, 11-101, and 06-44 are hereby modified to require disclosure for two years after the judge is a social guest at an attorney's wedding.

_____________________________

¹In Opinion 12-90, we advised only that a judge’s ethical obligations after attending an attorney’s wedding “depend on the particular nature of [their] relationship outside the courtroom” and cited Opinion 11-125.