Opinion 16-111

October 7, 2016

Please Note: Sections 100.3(E)(1)(e) and 100.3(F) were amended in 2018. As we recognized in Opinion 22-162, these changes mean that remittal is no longer possible if the judge's child "personally appears in the courtroom during the proceeding or is likely to do so" (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e][i]). Please see Sections 100.3(E)(1)(e) and 100.3(F) and/or Opinion 22-162 for more information.

Dear :

         This responds to your inquiry (16-111) asking if you must exercise recusal if your child gains employment with a law firm for the purposes of studying law and that law firm appears before you.

         The Committee has previously advised that if a judge’s child is employed temporarily by a law firm, the judge must disclose the child’s position whenever an attorney from that law office appears in the judge’s court. In addition, the judge must determine whether his/her child had any involvement in the particular matter before the court. If the judge’s child was involved in the matter, the judge must disqualify him/herself. However, the judge’s disqualification is subject to remittal. Remittal is a three-step process (see Opinion 15-224 n 2).

         Enclosed, for your convenience, are Opinions 15-224; 11-94; and 09-04 which address this issue.

                                       Very truly yours,

George D. Marlow, Assoc. Justice

Appellate Division, First Dept. (Ret.)

Committee Co-Chair

                                       Hon. Margaret T. Walsh

                                       Family Court Judge

                                       Acting Justice of the Supreme Court

                                       Committee Co-Chair

Encls.