Opinion 08-192

October 23, 2008

Digest:         An administrative judge may permit a pro bono local action committee to implement a pro bono project in a city court, pursuant to which a city court judge will announce at the beginning of the court’s calendar that volunteer attorneys are available in the courthouse to consult with and to represent tenants involved in pending summary proceedings. The judge must make clear that the volunteer attorneys do not speak for the court, that the judge does not recommend any particular volunteer attorney, and that the court does not, by virtue of the volunteer attorneys’ availability in the courtroom, officially recommend them or their services.

Rules:          22 NYCRR 100.2(A), (C); Joint Opinion 95-14/ 95-21 (Vol. XIII); Opinion 93-51 (Vol. XI).

Opinion:

         An administrative judge asks about the propriety of developing a project in a city court that is subject to his/her supervision. He/she is co-chair of a pro bono local action committee that proposes to enlist volunteer attorneys to attend court on certain specified days and consult with and/or represent qualified tenants in pending summary proceedings. The attorneys would attempt to negotiate settlements, and when necessary, represent tenants throughout the proceedings, including a trial. The inquiring administrative judge asks whether it is ethically permissible for a city court judge who presides over summary proceedings to announce at the beginning of the court’s calendar that the volunteer attorneys are available for consultation and representation and to allow such attorneys to negotiate settlements in pending summary proceedings, either directly with a landlord or his/her counsel or in conference with the court.

         A judge must act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). Furthermore, a judge is prohibited by the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct from lending the prestige of judicial office to advance his/her private interests or the private interests of others and from conveying or permitting others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).

         The Committee has previously advised that a judge can make a bar association directory and a notice about lawyer referral services that includes a list of attorneys available in the court, provided the judge does not recommend any particular lawyer or law firm, and it is clear that the court is not making any specific recommendation (see Joint Opinion 95-14/95-21 [Vol. XIII]). The Committee also has advised that it is not ethically impermissible for a pro bono panel or group of volunteer attorneys to use courthouse space to aid unrepresented parties in civil cases, provided that it is made clear that the attorneys do not speak for the court and that the court facilities are furnished solely as a matter of courtesy (see Opinion 93-51 [Vol. XI]).

         Therefore, an administrative judge may allow a city court judge to announce at the beginning of the court calendar that volunteer pro bono attorneys are in the courtroom to consult with and/or represent qualified tenants in pending summary proceedings and to allow the volunteer attorneys to attempt to negotiate settlements in pending summary proceedings, either directly with a landlord or his/her counsel or in conference with the court. The judge must make clear, however, that the volunteer attorneys do not speak for the court, that the judge does not recommend any particular volunteer attorney, and that the court, by virtue of the attorneys’ availability, does not officially recommend them or their services.