Opinion 24-96
May 9, 2024
Digest: On the specific facts presented, a judge who is advised by the authorities that the judge’s adult child repeatedly invoked the judge’s name and judicial status in an effort to avoid arrest and criminal charges should notify the judge’s child in writing to cease using the judge’s name in such circumstances.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); Opinions 23-25; 20-190; 20-158; 18-126; 17-78; 12-61; 11-35; 03-92.
Opinion:
The inquiring judge recently received a telephone call from his/her adult child, who was under arrest at a police station, asking the judge to intervene. The judge informed his/her child that it would be inappropriate and declined to do so. The judge later learned from a prosecutor or law enforcement officer that the judge’s child told the police multiple times that his/her parent was a judge and “would have [their] badges.” The judge responded that the child’s statements were unauthorized and inappropriate. The judge now asks if he/she must take any further action.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge must not “lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others” nor “convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge” (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).
When a judge learns that a third party is improperly using the judge’s name and/or judicial status, we “have often required the judge to object in writing” (Opinion 23-25). For example, when a judge participated in an interview the judge believed was for a bar association and later found it posted on a private law firm’s website, we said the judge must instruct the firm to remove the post (see Opinion 18-126). And where a judge learns that a not-for-profit entity is using the judge’s name or photograph for fund-raising, we have said the judge must instruct the entity to cease doing so (see e.g. Opinions 12-61; 11-35; 03-92). Similarly, where an appellate judge learned that a law firm’s website “feature[d] screen shots and video of the court’s oral arguments, in which the court’s justices are visible and readily identifiable,” we said the judge “must object in writing to the law firm” and “instruct the law firm not to use images from the court’s webcasts in a similar manner in the future” (Opinion 20-158).
As described here, it appears the judge’s adult child not only disregarded the judge’s prior informal cautions or reminders, but also made explicit threats of judicial retaliation in the judge’s name, in an effort to avoid arrest and/or criminal charges. Moreover, it appears that the judge’s child’s comments were sufficiently serious or memorable that the authorities decided to inform the judge about them. On these facts, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, the judge should advise his/her adult child in writing that his/her comments were improper and instruct him/her not to invoke the judge’s name or judicial status during any encounters with law enforcement.[1] After doing so, the judge has no obligation to take further action (see Opinions 20-158; 20-190; 17-78).
[1] While the exact wording, format, and delivery method are left to the judge’s sole discretion, we suggest (but do not require) the judge consider retaining a copy for his/her records.