Opinion 26-45

March 26, 2026

Digest:  A judge must continue to disqualify in matters involving his/her former law firm for two years from the date the business and financial relationship between the judge and his/her former law firm completely ends. 

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (B); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(F); Opinions 25-130; 21-22(A); 15-63.

Opinion:

          A few months after taking the bench, the inquiring full-time judge received a “final compensation check” from his/her former law firm.  However, the judge also had an agreement with the law firm to receive a percentage of fees for two outstanding cases, if the matters were resolved by the end of that same year.  The cases did not resolve by year’s end and the law firm paid no more money to the judge; the fee agreement then “terminated by its terms” on December 31 of that year.  The judge now asks whether to calculate the two-year disqualification period for his/her former law firm from the date of the April payment (i.e. the “final compensation check”) or from the later date on which the fee agreement terminated.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  A judge must not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment (22 NYCRR 100.2[B]) and must disqualify in matters where his/her impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]). 

          In general, a “judge is disqualified from presiding in any case involving his/her prior law firm until two years have passed after completion of the financial and business relationship” (Opinion 25-130).  As we explained in Opinion 15-63, the two-year period “begins once all business and financial relations between the judge and firm are entirely severed.”  The financial relationships “are not entirely severed until all financial obligations between the judge and the firm have completely ended, so that no further potential contingency or compensation payments, outstanding rents, or other financial connections exist between the judge and law firm” (id.).

          Here, although the judge ultimately did not receive any further compensation after the April payment, the fee agreement between them remained in effect until the end of the year.  As described, the judge had a contractual right to compensation from the law firm during that period if certain conditions were met.  On these facts, the business and financial relationship between them clearly continued past the date of the April payment and did not end until their fee agreement terminated on December 31.

          Accordingly, the inquiring judge must continue to disqualify from any and all matters involving the law firm for two years after December 31 of the year in question. 

          We note that disqualification on this basis may be subject to remittal under Section 100.3(F).  As set forth in our opinions, remittal is a multi-step process that requires full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification and the voluntary affirmative consent of the parties and their counsel (see Opinion 21-22[A]; 22 NYCRR 100.3[F]).