Opinion 25-192

December 18, 2025

Digest: On these facts, a part-time judge’s law firm may not represent a private client in a civil action against the District Attorney’s office that regularly appears in the judge’s court or a police department that regularly appears in the county’s Centralized Arraignment Part.

Rules:    22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(A); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(c); 100.6(B)(1)-(5); Opinions 25-138; 24-200; 21-01; 19-160; 18-184; 07-212.

Opinion:

          The inquiring part-time judge’s law partner, who recently defended a client in a criminal case, would like to represent that client in a related civil lawsuit in federal court.  The lawsuit would seek money damages from a police department and possibly the District Attorney’s office.  The “potential conflict” here, as described by the judge, is two-fold.  First, the local District Attorney’s office, as “the prosecuting agency in the underlying criminal matter, would be a necessary or potential party in the proposed civil action.”  Second, although the police department at issue does not appear in the judge’s court, it “regularly presents charges” in the county’s Centralized Arraignment Part, where the judge is assigned several times per year.  The judge asks if his/her law partner may undertake the proposed representation and if that will preclude the judge from presiding in the Centralized Arraignment Part.  The judge is willing to waive any share in “the proceeds from any potential recovery,” if necessary.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  Unlike a full-time judge, a part-time judge may practice law subject to certain limitations (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B][1]-[5]).  A judge is disqualified in any proceeding where “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]), including where the judge “has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or has any other interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][c]).  In any event, a judge’s judicial duties “take precedence over all the judge’s other activities” (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[A]).

          We have previously advised that a part-time attorney judge may represent a client in civil rights litigation in federal court against a city’s police officers and municipal officials, where the city is located in another county (see Opinion 24-200).  While the proposed litigation here would likewise take place in federal court and does not appear to be intertwined with any matters originating in the judge’s court, a critical difference is that the proposed representation will involve a prosecutor’s office and police department in the same county where the judge presides.

          We have said that a judge must disqualify in matters involving a client’s current litigation adversary, where the judge’s law firm has brought a civil lawsuit against that defendant on behalf of the client (see Opinion 25-138 [noting the disqualification may be subject to remittal]).  Indeed, where a part-time attorney judge is representing a client in a civil action against an individual police officer in a matter unrelated to their law enforcement duties, we still concluded the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” in all matters involving the client’s litigation adversary, including where he/she appears as a law enforcement officer (see Opinion 07-212).

          Because a judge’s judicial duties must take precedence over his/her other activities, we have cautioned that a judge whose outside employment results in excessive disqualifications must choose between the positions (see e.g. Opinions 21-01 [town justice may not recuse on all village cases in order to maintain position as village attorney]; 19-160 [town justice must choose between judicial role and position as assistant county attorney should disqualifications become excessive]).