Opinion 25-190

December 18, 2025

Digest:  A judge need not disqualify nor disclose a close personal relationship with a supervising attorney when the attorney’s subordinates appear before the judge, provided the judge concludes he/she can be fair and impartial.

Rules:   Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(B); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 25-131; 15-45; 14-90; 12-85(B); 11-125.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge maintains a close personal friendship with a particular attorney and has determined that he/she must disqualify, subject to remittal, if the friend were to appear before the judge (see Opinion 11-125).  The friend is now the chief attorney of an agency’s law department and thus supervises many staff attorneys who will appear before the judge.  The judge asks if disclosure or disqualification is required in matters where staff attorneys under the friend’s chain of command appear.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act in a manner that promotes the public’s confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  Further, 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]). A judge must disqualify in cases where the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]) and as required by rule or law (see generally id.; Judiciary Law § 14). 

          A judge’s obligation to disqualify depends upon the judge’s own relationship with the attorney, party, or witness at issue (see Opinion 25-131, citing Opinion 11-125 [discussing three categories of relationships]).  Thus, we have advised that a judge’s “social relationship with the deputy director of a legal services organization does not, alone, require disqualification or disclosure when the deputy director’s subordinates appear before the judge” (Opinion 14-90; see Opinions 15-45 [public law office]; 12-85[B] [law firm]).  We explained that a “judge’s impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned merely because an attorney appearing before the judge reports to an individual who is the judge’s long-time, close personal friend, where there is no indication … that the judge has any direct relationship – social, professional, or otherwise – with those attorneys” (Opinion 15-45 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]).

          Accordingly, the inquiring judge does not have an ethical obligation to disqualify or disclose a close personal relationship with a supervising attorney when the attorney’s subordinates appear before the judge, provided the judge concludes he/she can be fair and impartial.