Opinion 92-31

May 7, 1992

Please Note: For updated guidance with respect to the judge’s obligations after the judge’s relative’s representation ends, see e.g. Opinions 20-100, 18-32, 16-66, 14-60, and 13-132.  In Opinion 18-32, we said “In general, a judge is disqualified, subject to remittal, when an attorney representing the judge’s first or second-degree relative appears before the judge (see Opinions 14-60; 13-132). When his/her relative hires the attorney, the judge’s obligations are ordinarily limited to the specific attorneys who are or were personally involved, either in a direct or supervisory capacity, in representing the judge’s relative (see id.). Once the representation has concluded, disclosure is required, in lieu of disqualification, for a two-year period thereafter (see id.). ... After the two-year period has elapsed, the judge has no further obligation, but may disclose in his/her sole discretion if he/she wishes to do so.”

Digest:         A judge may preside over a case where one of the attorneys represented the judge's son two years ago, but the judge should disclose the relationship on the record.

Rule:            22 NYCRR 100.3(c).

Opinion:

         A judge asks whether disqualification is necessary in a case where one of the attorneys represented the judge's adult son in a misdemeanor case two years ago.

         The judge may preside in this case, as more than two years have passed since the attorney's representation of the judge's son. The judge may sit, even if there is an objection, provided the judge believes that he or she can be impartial. For a reasonable time thereafter the judge should disclose the relationship with the attorney if the judge notices that the attorney is someone who has represented a member of the judge's family.