Opinion 26-01

February 5, 2026

Digest: A judge whose spouse is a party in a Family Court proceeding should not voluntarily disclose his/her judicial status in that proceeding, even if he/she becomes a non-party participant in the proceeding.

Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); Opinions 25-55; 22-66; 15-131; 08-95; 07-18.

Opinion:

The inquiring judge’s spouse is a litigant in a Family Court proceeding within the same courthouse where the judge presides. The spouse’s adversary is represented by counsel and is already personally aware of the inquirer’s judicial status. While the judge is not a party to the proceeding, he/she has learned that opposing counsel will seek financial information from the judge, notwithstanding that the judge and his/her spouse maintain entirely separate finances. The judge asks if he/she should disclose his/her judicial status under these circumstances, as he/she is uncertain if it might be “relevant, related, or necessary” to the proceeding.

A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]). A judge also must not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance any private interest (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).

We have advised that a judge appearing as a private litigant “must not voluntarily disclose his/her judicial status to the presiding judge, unless relevant, related, or necessary to the proceeding” (Opinions 25-55). Likewise, in Opinion 07-18, we advised that a quasi-judicial official “who is a party in a civil litigation should not voluntarily disclose” his/her quasi-judicial status to the presiding officer and “should advise his/her attorney-spouse not to do so, unless relevant, related, or necessary” (Opinion 07-18). Where the judge is a party, we have further advised that “disclosure should be made to the other side, through counsel where possible, so that both sides can decide jointly on the best course” (Opinion 25-55).

Here, the inquiring judge is a non-party participant in the pending Family Court proceeding. In our view, voluntary disclosure of the judge’s judicial status in the context of a Family Court proceeding in which the judge’s spouse is a litigant is not “relevant, related or necessary to the proceeding” (Opinions 25-55; 15-131). Under the circumstances, any unnecessary, voluntary disclosure of the judge’s judicial status, “even if well-intentioned, may be perceived as an inappropriate invocation of such status to further the private interests” of the judge’s spouse (Opinion 07-18; see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]; Opinions 25-55; 22-66; 08-95).^{^[1]}

On the facts presented, we also see no reason to require the judge, as a non-party, to make any disclosure to his/her spouse’s opposing counsel.

Accordingly, the inquiring judge should refrain from voluntarily disclosing his/her judicial status in the proceeding.

[1] This does not, of course, prevent the judge from truthfully answering questions under oath if required in the course of the proceeding.