Opinion 24-193

February 6, 2025

Digest:   (1) While it is ethically permissible for a judge to receive accommodations to which he/she may be legally entitled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Committee cannot comment on any legal questions, including the suitability or lawfulness of a specific proposed accommodation. 
(2) If a private individual, who is not a government employee, is hired to assist a judge with court-related duties or functions, the judge must ensure that the assistant abides by all appropriate ethical limitations for court personnel, including the obligation of confidentiality. 
(3) Regardless of the nature or extent of any legally required accommodations, a judge must retain full control of judicial decision-making and ensure that he/she delegates only strictly ministerial tasks.

Rules:    Judiciary Law § 212(2)(l); 22 NYCRR 50.1; 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(8); 100.3(C)(2); 101.1; Opinions 19-47; 18-04(B); 15-127; 14-137; 10-116.

Opinion:

          The inquiring town or village justice has “a disability that affects [the judge’s] hands and arms,” so that the judge needs assistance “with the amount of paper and other items that the Court has to handle.”  The judge has proposed an arrangement to the local municipality that involves hiring a private individual, who would not be a government employee, to serve as the judge’s part-time assistant.  Among other things, the assistant would help the judge by physically “setting fines on tickets, drafting and putting in final form Orders and various other judicial documents.”  While it appears from the inquiry that the municipality is uncertain whether the specific proposed job description, employment agreement and oath, salary, and funding arrangements constitute a lawful and proper accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the judge merely asks if the proposed arrangement is ethically permissible. 

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2), must act in a manner that “promotes public confidence” in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (22 NYCRR 100.2[A]), and must “respect and comply with the law” (id.).  The judge must also “require” court staff and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to observe the same standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[C][2]), refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of his/her official duties (id.), and abstain from public comment about pending or impending proceedings in any court within the United States or its territories (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]).

          In our view, the judge’s proposed job description, employment agreement and oath, salary, and funding arrangements raise primarily legal issues on which we cannot comment (see generally Judiciary Law § 212[2][l]; 22 NYCRR 101.1).  Thus, while it is undoubtedly ethically permissible for a judge to receive accommodations to which he/she may be legally entitled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, we cannot comment on the suitability or lawfulness of a specific proposed accommodation (see id.). 

          We nonetheless discern two broad judicial ethics issues which the judge must address, assuming the proposed arrangement is otherwise lawful. 

          First, we note that nonjudicial court personnel, whether in state-paid courts or in town or village justice courts, are ordinarily government employees who are bound by a code of ethics.  Such codes typically include, at the very least, limitations on the disclosure or use of confidential information, prohibitions on conflicts of interest and self-dealing, restrictions on solicitation or acceptance of gifts, and other such issues.

          Accordingly, if this judge retains a private individual who is not a government employee, to provide assistance with court-related duties or functions, the judge must ensure that the assistant abides by all appropriate ethical limitations for court personnel including the obligation of confidentiality (see e.g. 22 NYCRR 50.1 [Code of Ethics for Nonjudicial Employees of the Unified Court System]; Opinion 10-116 fn 1 [town and village justices “should encourage” their nonjudicial court employees to be guided by those rules]).

          Second, to the extent this judge requires physical assistance from support staff in writing, typing, and handling papers due to a disability, we see no ethical impropriety in an assistant performing those ministerial tasks for the judge at the judge’s direction, provided that the judge does not delegate judicial decision-making and continues to discharge his/her own judicial duties (see e.g. Opinions 19-47; 18-04[B]; 15-127; 14-137).  We note that the judge may not direct an assistant to enter fines on tickets based on a chart or fixed schedule, but must instead direct him/her as to what to write on each ticket (see Opinion 19-47). 

          In sum, regardless of the nature or extent of any legally required accommodations, a judge must retain full control of judicial decision-making and ensure that he/she delegates only strictly ministerial tasks.