Opinion 23-126

October 26, 2023

Digest:  (1) A judge need not disqualify from matters involving an attorney who is no more than an acquaintance, merely because the attorney’s spouse is the judge’s close personal friend.  (2) For two years after attending the attorney’s wedding as a member of the wedding party at the request of the judge’s close personal friend, the judge must make full disclosure of his/her relationship with the attorney, including the judge’s attendance and participation in the attorney’s wedding. 

Rules:   Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(B); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 22-138; 21-06; 15-185; 11-125; People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 (1987).

Opinion:

          A long-pending case before the inquiring judge is now ready for trial.  One of the attorneys recently married a close personal friend of the judge.  Although the judge is cordial with the attorney, the judge indicates they are merely acquaintances under Opinion 11-125.  However, the judge attended the attorney’s wedding and was a member of the wedding party at the invitation of the judge’s close personal friend.  The judge’s involvement is apparent in wedding photos posted on social media.  The judge asks if they must recuse or disclose the judge/attorney relationship, if the judge determines they can be fair and impartial.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  Therefore, a judge must not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]), and must disqualify from a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality “might be reasonably questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]) or in other specific circumstances required by rule or law (see id.; Judiciary Law § 14).  Where objective standards do not mandate disqualification, however, a trial judge is the sole arbiter of recusal (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 [1987]).

          Opinion 11-125 sets forth three broad categories of social relationships to assist judges in determining “the nature of their own specific relationships with particular attorneys and their ethical obligations resulting from those relationships.”  In general, if a judge determines that an attorney is merely an “acquaintance” as defined in Opinion 11-125, the judge may preside without disclosure.  Conversely, the decision to disclose or disqualify due to a close social/personal relationship with an attorney depends on the totality of the circumstances based on a number of factors (id.). 

          We have said that a judge need not disclose or disqualify from matters involving an attorney acquaintance, even though the judge maintains a close personal relationship with the attorney’s sibling (see Opinion 21-06).  That is, a disqualifying relationship between the judge and an attorney’s sibling does not automatically extend to the attorney (see id.).  Here, too, as long as the inquiring judge determines that the overall relationship between the judge and the attorney remains that of an “acquaintance” under Opinion 11-125 and the judge can be fair and impartial, the judge need not recuse nor disclose solely because the attorney’s spouse is the judge’s close personal friend (see e.g. Opinions 21-06; 15-185; 15-45).

          However, a judge also incurs disclosure obligations after attending an attorney’s wedding as a social guest.  Even where a judge’s relationship with an attorney is otherwise at the acquaintance level, we recognized that the “particularly significant and personal nature of a wedding” could create an appearance of impropriety if not disclosed (Opinion 22-138 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  We therefore require “disclosure for two years after the judge is a social guest at an attorney’s wedding” (id.). 

          Here, the judge was not only an attendee at the wedding, but also served as a member of the wedding party.  Accordingly, for two years after the date of the wedding, the judge must make full disclosure of the judge’s relationship with the attorney, including the judge’s attendance and participation in the wedding party due to the judge’s close personal friendship with the attorney’s spouse.  Provided the judge can be fair and impartial, the judge may thereafter preside in the matter after making full disclosure on the record, even if a party objects.