Opinion 25-30

February 6, 2025

Digest:   A part-time judge who is also employed by a law firm as a bookkeeper must disqualify in cases where that law firm appears.

Rules:    Judiciary Law §§ 9, 14, 212(2)(l); 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(F); Opinions 21-97; 21-22(A); 21-02; 95-80; 94-108.

Opinion:

          A new part-time non-lawyer judge asks if he/she may preside in a case where defense counsel is a partner at the law firm where the judge currently works as a bookkeeper.  If disqualification is required, the judge further requests guidance on disqualification procedures and the scope of any necessary disclosure.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge 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).

          We have advised that a part-time judge who is employed by a law firm must disqualify in all matters where a party is represented by the judge’s employer, even where the judge is employed in a non-attorney role (see Opinions 95-80 [disqualifying judge employed as investigator in law firm]; 94-108 [disqualifying judge working as paralegal at law firm]).

          Accordingly, this judge must disqualify when the law firm that employs the judge as a bookkeeper appears in the judge’s court.

Comment on Mechanics of Disqualification

          We note that the exact procedures to effectuate disqualification or recusal may vary around the state; this is largely an administrative or legal question which may be addressed with an appropriate administrative or supervising judge, or other designated court personnel.  Unless the judge wishes to offer an opportunity for remittal of disqualification (see e.g. Opinion 21-22[A]; 22 NYCRR 100.3[F]), the extent of any required disclosure is primarily a legal question under Judiciary Law § 9:

Any judge who recuses himself or herself from sitting in or taking any part in the decision of an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding shall provide the reason for such recusal in writing or on the record; provided, however, that no judge shall be required to provide a reason for such recusal when the reason may result in embarrassment, or is of a personal nature, affecting the judge or a person related to the judge within the sixth degree by consanguinity or affinity.

The Unified Court System provides a form for recusal in accordance with Judiciary Law § 9, which may be used by a recusing judge and filed with the clerk of the court.  Again, a judge should follow any administrative procedures established for recusal by his/her local supervising judge and/or district administrative judge.

          We decline to comment on the appropriate scope of disclosure under Judiciary Law § 9, as this is a legal question beyond our jurisdiction (see Judiciary Law § 212[2][l]; Opinions 21-97; 21-02).