Opinion 26-07
February 5, 2026
Digest: A part-time judge who is also a principal law clerk should use two distinct email signature blocks when conducting court business to avoid any perception of judicial prestige and to ensure clarity when corresponding in his/her judicial and non-judicial capacities.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.4(D)(1)(a); Opinions 24-154; 23-62/23-63/23-111; 22-131; 20-80; 91-57.
Opinion:
A part-time town justice who is also a full-time principal law clerk to a superior court judge asks if it is ethically permissible to use one email signature block for both positions, i.e. whether he/she may list both his/her judicial and non-judicial position in the signature of emails sent in the course of his/her law clerk employment. If it is not ethically permissible, the judge asks for guidance on how his/her signature block must appear. The judge has been provided only one nycourts.gov e-mail address from which to conduct the business of both positions.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]). A judge “shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others” (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]), nor engage in business and financial dealings that “may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position” (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][1][a]).
While this is a matter of first impression, we have previously discussed the need for a clear demarcation between judicial and non-judicial roles. For example, we said that a court-referee “should not refer to him/herself as a ‘jurist’ in his/her auto-response message to members of the public, as this could create the false impression that he/she is a judge” (Opinion 20-80). We also cautioned that a part-time judge’s use of his/her “outside email address and outside signature block for judicial business could suggest a blurring of the lines between” the judge’s judicial role and his/her extra-judicial employment (Opinion 23-62/23-63/23-111). Similarly, we advised that a town justice who practices law may mention his/her judicial title within the body of an online law firm biography, but not in the heading of the biography or elsewhere on the law firm’s website or stationery (see Opinion 24-154). We have also said that a former judge appearing in court as an attorney “should be addressed the same as other counsel; either as Mr. or Ms. or counsellor, but not as judge” (Opinion 91-57). Indeed, when analyzing a part-time judge’s obligations based on his/her concurrent employment as a full-time non-judicial court employee, we have specifically distinguished instances when the “judge received information in a non-judicial capacity . . . in the course of their employment as a non-judicial court employee” (Opinion 22-131).
In our view, the inquirer’s dual employment as a part-time judge and a full-time principal law clerk strongly supports using two separate signature blocks to maintain a strict separation between his/her judicial and non-judicial functions. Thus, to avoid any perception of judicial prestige when acting as a principal law clerk, and to ensure clarity when corresponding in his/her judicial and non-judicial capacities, the inquiring judge should not use a single signature block referencing both roles, but should instead identify him/herself with the appropriate signature block for the role in which he/she is acting when conducting court business.[1]
[1] We note that the inquirer may contact the court system’s Department of Technology for assistance in setting up two separate signature blocks for use with his/her nycourts.gov email address.