Opinion 26-78

May 7, 2026

Facts/Issue:    A judge seeks guidance on the “level of scrutiny a judge is required to give to assigned counsel vouchers submitted to the judge for approval.”  In particular, the judge asks if he/she is ethically required to “evaluate each individual line to make a judgment of whether it represents ‘fair value’ for the review of a document, a phone call, or a client conference,” or if it is sufficient to “review the total fee submitted to evaluate the fair value of services provided for the entire, completed matter.”

Discussion:      As we understand it, attorneys assigned to cases under County Law article 18-B must submit their vouchers for court approval once the case has been completed.  The Rules Governing Judicial Conduct provide that “A judge shall not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered” (22 NYCRR 100.3[C][3]), but do not provide detailed guidance about how to approve assigned counsel vouchers.  In our view, the applicable standards to use when reviewing such vouchers, including whether and to what extent the judge must review each individual line and/or the total fee, present primarily legal questions on which we cannot comment. 

                       We have previously advised there is no ethical rule prohibiting a successor judge from reviewing and approving a voucher for services rendered by a court-appointed attorney, merely because those services occurred while the case was pending before a predecessor judge.  In reaching that conclusion, we noted that:

[E]ven when a judge has presided over a case since its inception, the payment voucher often contains entries outside the personal knowledge, such as meetings with a client, conducting legal research, visiting the crime scene, etc.  If a judge questions an entry, it is, from a judicial ethics perspective, within the judge’s discretion to request information from an attorney in all instances.

The same principles apply here. 

Conclusion:     The Committee cannot advise on the level of scrutiny needed to evaluate whether an assigned counsel voucher should be approved.  It is within the judge’s purview to request information if needed.

Authorities:  Opinion 23-235.