Opinion 26-70

May 7, 2026

Digest:  Where reporting to the attorney grievance committee is not ethically mandated, a judge’s decision to provide feedback about an attorney’s consistently rude behavior to the attorney’s legal services employer does not, without more, trigger any obligation to disclose or disqualify when the attorney or the legal services employer appears.

Rules:   Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(D)(2); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 25-142; 15-69.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge regularly presides over matters involving attorneys from a legal services organization.  One of these attorneys is “consistently rude” to court participants and was ejected from the courtroom for “outbursts and disrespect.”  A member of the judge’s staff, presumably acting on behalf of the judge, reported these concerns to the attorney’s employer.  The judge now asks if, as a result of the reporting, he/she is disqualified in cases involving the attorney and/or the legal services organization that employs the attorney.

A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  A judge also must disqualify him/herself from any proceeding in which his/her impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]), including where specifically required by rule or statute (see id.; Judiciary Law § 14).

          In circumstances where a judge formally or informally reports an attorney to the grievance committee (Opinion 15-69 [citations and quotations omitted]):

he/she [is] disqualified in any case in which the attorney is involved both during the pendency of the disciplinary matter and for a period of two years after the disciplinary matter is fully resolved.  Such disqualification is not subject to remittal unless the attorney waives confidentiality or the grievance committee issues a public disciplinary decision.

          Here, as the inquiring judge has not asked about his/her disciplinary obligations, we trust that the judge has already determined that the issues he/she observed did not warrant a report to the attorney grievance committee under Section 100.3(D)(2).  We have previously addressed a similar circumstance, where a judge decided that certain problems with an attorney’s conduct need not be referred for discipline but “were nonetheless worth reporting to the assigned counsel panel” (Opinion 25-142).  We concluded that, provided the judge can be fair and impartial, the judge may continue to preside in matters involving the attorney he/she reported to the assigned counsel panel (id.).  As we explained (id.):

In our view, a judge’s decision to provide a frank and timely evaluation of an attorney’s conduct to the assigned counsel panel is best seen as an effort to ensure the constitutional right of indigent defendants and improve the administration of justice, rather than as the functional equivalent of initiating a disciplinary proceeding.  Indeed, early reporting of issues and concerns could potentially benefit the reported attorney if the panel’s guidance, interventions or reassignments spur the attorney to improve his/her performance and avoid professional discipline in the future.  By contrast, requiring judges to disqualify after providing negative feedback to the assigned counsel panel would discourage judges from raising concerns that may need to be addressed and undermine the panel’s ability to perform its core functions.

          Here, we reach the same conclusion.  In our view, reporting the attorney’s consistently rude behavior to the attorney’s legal services employer, without more, does not trigger the judge’s disqualification obligations.  Accordingly, provided the inquiring judge can be fair and impartial, he/she is not disqualified from presiding in matters involving the particular attorney or the attorney’s employer.  The judge also need not make any disclosure.