Opinion 25-100

September 10, 2025

Digest:  (1) A judge need not disclose or disqualify merely because an attorney appearing in the case is or was listed as a “supporter” on the judge’s campaign materials. 
(2) After election day, a judge need not disclose or disqualify in cases involving an attorney who hosted one fund-raising event for the judge, but played no other significant or ongoing role in the judge’s campaign.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 36.2(c)(4)(ii); 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(C)(3); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 21-120; 19-22; 18-35; 16-14; 12-164; 09-245; 03-64; 01-07; 90-182.

Opinion:

          A newly elected judge has requested guidance regarding their ethical obligations when attorneys who hosted a single fund-raiser for the judge during the campaign, or who were listed as a “supporter” on campaign materials, appear in the judge’s court or would be considered for Part 36 appointments.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge must therefore disqualify in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).  Further, a judge must exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit, avoiding nepotism and favoritism (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[C][3]).  For Part 36 appointments, a judge also may not appoint a person who served as “campaign chair, coordinator, manager, treasurer or finance chair” for his/her judicial campaign, “or the spouse, sibling, parent or child of that person, or anyone associated with the law firm of that person . . . for a period of two years following the judicial election” (22 NYCRR 36.2[c][4][ii]).

          We have recognized that “an attorney’s participation in a judicial election campaign may range from very minimal levels of involvement, that do not even require disclosure, to very active conduct in support of a judge’s candidacy which warrants disqualification when the attorney appears before the judge” (Opinion 09-245).  Where the attorney’s participation in the judge’s campaign is significant and ongoing, and thus “more than minimal,” the judge’s obligations typically continue past election day (Opinion 12-164).  For example, a judge’s obligation to disqualify in matters involving their former campaign manager terminates “two years after the campaign manager relationship has ended” (Opinion 21-120).

          Here, however, the inquiring judge is asking about his/her obligations with respect to attorneys who did not serve as campaign chair, coordinator, manager, treasurer or finance chair and did not otherwise play a significant and ongoing role in the judge’s campaign.

          Where an attorney allows him/herself to be publicly identified as a supporter of the judge, but plays no other role in the campaign, we have said this minimal involvement does not raise reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality, even during the campaign (see e.g. Opinions 16-14; 03-64; 90-182).  Accordingly, this judge need not disclose or disqualify in matters involving attorneys who were listed as supporters of the judge’s candidacy, provided the judge can be fair and impartial.

          Where an attorney organizes a single fund-raiser for a judge’s election campaign, the judge is disqualified, subject to remittal, in all matters involving that attorney and his/her partners or associates during the election campaign (see Opinions 19-22; 18-35; 03-64; 01-07).  This obligation ends on election day (see Opinions 19-22; 18-35).  Here, since it is past election day, this judge need not disclose or disqualify in matters involving these attorneys, provided the judge can be fair and impartial. 

          Because the judge is not disqualified in matters involving these attorneys, the judge may also appoint any of them to Part 36 positions for which they are qualified, “provided the appointment is made impartially and on the basis of merit” (Opinion 19-22; 22 NYCRR 100.3[C][3]).