Opinion 24-157

October 30, 2024

Digest:  A judge has no further obligation to disqualify or disclose in matters involving an attorney who previously represented him/her, where the prior attorney-client relationship completely terminated more than two years ago.

Rules:   Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A)–(B); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 23-44; 22-183; 11-125; 03-64.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judges previously retained counsel in connection with a high-profile litigation.  As the matter completely terminated approximately three years ago, they ask if they must continue to disqualify in matters involving the attorneys who represented them.  They also ask if they should disqualify in matters involving attorneys who were “supportive” of their position but had no actual involvement in the representation and entered no appearance on their behalf.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge must not allow social or other relationships to influence his/her judicial conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]) and must disqualify in any proceeding where the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]), including where required by rule or law (see generally id.; Judiciary Law § 14).

          Once a judge’s personal legal matter has concluded and all legal fees have been paid, a two-year post-representation period commences.  During this period, the judge must continue to disqualify in matters involving any attorney who personally participated in representing the judge (see Opinion 23-44), and must fully disclose the fact and nature of the representation when such attorney’s partners or associates appear (see id.). 

          After that two-year post-representation period, however, the judge’s obligation ends (see Opinion 22-183).  Thus, whether to disclose or recuse after two years have passed is entirely within the judge’s discretion (id.).

          Here, because the representation completely ended more than two years ago, the judges are no longer obligated to disqualify themselves or disclose the representation.

          We note the present opinion focuses solely on the judges’ obligations with respect to attorneys and law firms that represented them.  A judge has no obligation to disclose or disqualify merely because an attorney made statements expressing agreement with the judge’s position in a lawsuit (cf. Opinion 03-64 [“mere listing of an attorney as a supporter of the candidate does not necessarily require recusal”]).  Whether any such statements of support might be factors to consider in the context of the judge’s overall social relationship with an attorney is not before us at this time (see generally Opinion 11-125).