Opinion 26-33

March 26, 2026

Digest:  A part-time attorney judge may not wear a Unified Court System lapel pin when appearing in court as a private attorney.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); Opinions 22-66; 10-25; 08-80; 06-41; 92-125; 90-60.

Opinion:

          A part-time attorney judge asks if it is ethically permissible to wear a Unified Court System lapel pin, issued during judicial training, while appearing in court as a private attorney.  The pin displays the state seal and motto, surrounded by the words “State of New York” and “Unified Court System.”  According to the inquirer, the pin indicates an affiliation with the court system, but does not specifically identify him/her as a judge.

          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]).  A judge may not use the prestige of judicial office to advance any private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).

          We have advised that a part-time attorney judge may not refer to his/her title or judicial status in advertisements for the judge’s private law practice (see e.g. Opinions 10-25; 92-125).  Similarly, we have said a part-time attorney judge must not post a sign outside his/her law office “advertising that he/she is a ‘Justice of the Peace,’ authorized to solemnize marriages” (Opinion 06-41).  Such actions would improperly lend the prestige of judicial office to the judge’s private interests.

          For similar reasons, we have cautioned against unnecessary, voluntary disclosure of a part-time judge’s judicial status when appearing as an attorney in court (see e.g. Opinions 22-66 [part-time attorney judge appearing on behalf of client “should not make an unnecessary, voluntary disclosure” that he/she once presided in criminal matter involving presiding judge’s secretary]; 08-80 [part-time attorney judge “should not voluntarily reveal his/her judicial status to prospective jurors” during voir dire]).  Indeed, to avoid even “the appearance of impropriety or favoritism,” we have advised that a sitting judge should not address a retired judge appearing as an attorney as “judge” or “Your Honor” (Opinion 90-60).

          Here, even though the pin does not specifically identify the wearer as a judge, the clear implication to the public is that the inquirer is affiliated with the Unified Court System, and very likely a judge.  This may create an impression the inquirer is seeking preferential treatment for his/her client due to the inquirer’s judicial status and/or affiliation with the court system. 

          We thus conclude that it is not ethically permissible for the inquiring part-time attorney judge to wear a Unified Court System pin, distributed to judges during training, while appearing as an attorney in private practice.