Opinion 26-81

May 7, 2026

Digest:  Where a judge concludes that appointment of a specific individual to provide court security is likely to interfere with or impede court operations, the judge should communicate this concern to an appropriate administrative or supervising judge.  After such consultation, the judge has no further ethical obligation.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(4); 100.3(C)(2); Opinions 22-62; 20-124.

Opinion:

          The inquiring town justice advises that the town has hired an ex-judge to provide security services to the court.  The ex-judge resigned while under investigation for denigrating the legal system, improper ex parte communications, and social media posts that reflect gender bias and favor law enforcement.  Moreover, the town justice says the allegations are well-known locally and the problematic social media posts continue.  While the inquirer recognizes that the hiring decision rests with the town, he/she is concerned that appointment of this particular ex-judge to provide court security may affect public “perceptions of fairness and the potential appearance of impropriety in future court proceedings.”  Accordingly, the town justice asks about his/her ethical obligations in this situation.

          A judge must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  “A judge in the performance of judicial duties shall not, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice . . . and shall require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to refrain from such words or conduct” (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][4]).  Further, a judge must “require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge and to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties” (22 NYCRR 100.3[C][2]).

          Where, as here, the inquiring “judge’s participation and/or consent is not legally required, the judge has no obligation to take any action with respect to an appointment unless the judge concludes the specific appointment is likely to unduly interfere with court operations” (Opinion 22-62 [emphasis added]).  If the judge concludes that the ex-judge’s appointment is likely to interfere with or impede court operations, “the judge should raise these concerns with appropriate executive branch officials and/or an administrative judge” (see Opinion 20-124).  Once the judge has raised the issue with an appropriate administrative or supervising judge, the judge has no further ethical obligation (see id.).