Opinion 24-182
December 12, 2024
Digest: (1) A judge need not
disqualify in all matters involving a law firm merely because an attorney at
the firm made a charitable donation in honor of the judge’s deceased relative
and was the president of a bar association which rated the judge’s
qualifications for judicial office.
(2) The judge also need not disqualify based on the judge’s spouse’s part-time
employment as a bookkeeper for a not-for-profit entity that does business with
the law firm, where the judge’s spouse has no discretion or decision-making
authority and has no relationship with the law firm other than cutting checks
to them and other vendors as directed.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 17-97; 16-130; 15-163; 12-97; 11-125; 03-83; 94-86.
Opinion:
The inquiring judge has been asked to recuse in matters involving a particular law firm because (a) an attorney at the firm made a donation to a bar association’s charitable foundation in honor of the judge’s deceased first-degree relative and (b) during the judge’s election campaign, that attorney was president of a bar association that screened the judge. Thereafter, the judge also learned that the law firm represents (among many other clients) a not-for-profit entity that employs the judge’s spouse as a part-time business manager. As business manager, the judge’s spouse cuts checks to various vendors, including the law firm. However, the judge’s spouse has no “discretion or decision-making authority as to whether to retain [the law firm] or the amount of any payments to them,” but simply cuts checks to vendors as directed. Beyond that, the judge’s spouse “does not have any other relationship with anyone at [the law firm].” The judge asks if disqualification is required in matters involving this law firm.
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]). Thus, a judge must disqualify him/herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).
The first two issues are easily dealt with. We have said a judge need not disclose nor disqualify in matters involving an attorney who made a charitable contribution in honor of the judge’s deceased relative, absent any unusual factors that would create an appearance of impropriety or a personal relationship that would require disclosure or disqualification on its own merits (see Opinions 15-163; 11-125). Likewise, after participating in a bar association’s screening panel, a judge ordinarily may preside over a matter in which a member of the panel appears as an attorney, absent any other disqualifying factor and assuming the judge can be fair and impartial (see Opinion 12-97).
As for the third issue, there is no indication in the inquiry that the judge’s spouse, as the part-time business manager of a not-for-profit entity, has any involvement whatsoever in selecting or consulting with the law firm (compare Opinions 17-97; 16-130; 03-83). To the contrary, the judge indicates that his/her spouse has no discretion or decision-making authority and no relationship with the law firm other than to cut checks as directed. In our view, this does not necessitate the judge’s disqualification in all matters involving the law firm.