Opinion 24-196

February 6, 2025

Digest:   A part-time judge may not permit his/her law firm to represent a Corrections Officers Benevolent Association in any county, even if the representation will be limited to contract negotiations or labor relations matters. 

Rules:    22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.6(B)(2)-(4); Opinion 21-143; 20-95; 95-157.

Opinion:

          A part-time attorney judge presides in town court in one county and practices law in another county.  The judge asks if his/her law firm may represent that other county’s Corrections Officers Benevolent Association “for the limited purposes of contract negotiations.”  The firm “would only represent the membership in labor relations matters, such as negotiating collective bargaining agreements or representing the union before a PERB mediator or arbitrator which are administrative hearings for contractual violations/disagreements.”  The firm would have absolutely no involvement in representing association members in “disciplinary proceedings, criminal matters, and anything related to the performance of their duties.”

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  Part-time attorney judges may practice law (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B][2]-[3]) and otherwise accept private employment which is compatible with judicial office, and which does not conflict or interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B][4]). 

          We have repeatedly advised that a judge “must strive to avoid not only the reality, but also the appearance, that he/she is aligned in interest with law enforcement in the judge’s extra-judicial activities” (Opinion 20-95 [internal quotation omitted]).  In Opinion 21-143, we said a part-time attorney judge may not represent a police benevolent association, even for a village in another county, “as an appearance of impropriety would be created, based on a perception that the judge is too closely aligned with law enforcement interests.”  As explained in a footnote, the judge in Opinion 21-143 primarily proposed to “represent the membership in labor relations matters, such as negotiating collective bargaining agreements or representing the union before a PERB mediator or arbitrator” (id. fn 1). 

          In our view, the proposed representation is not sufficiently distinguishable from that described in Opinion 21-143 and is therefore likewise impermissible.  On further consideration, we conclude that Opinion 95-157 is also not distinguishable and must therefore be overruled.