Opinion 25-104

September 10, 2025

Digest:  (1) Where the sole basis for a judge’s prior disqualification in a case was the fact that it was originally filed or assigned to the judge during the applicable two-year disqualification period for all matters involving the judge’s former law firm, the judge may accept re-assignment of the case after expiration of the two-year period.  The judge need not make any disclosure nor offer to recuse. 
(2) Conversely, if the judge had any direct or indirect involvement in a particular case as an attorney, no matter how minimal, the judge may not accept re-assignment of the case as he/she remains permanently disqualified without the possibility of remittal.

Rules:   Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(b)(i)-(ii); 100.3(E)(1)(c); 100.3(F); Opinions 21-22(A); 18-118; 18-46; 17-150; 17-100; 16-36; 15-126; 15-63; 09-71; 08-133; People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 (1987).

Opinion:

          The inquiring full-time judge recognizes that he/she must disqualify in certain matters for a two-year period due to his/her prior employment at a private law firm.  The judge asks whether, after the two-year period expires, matters from which the judge previously disqualified on this basis may be reassigned to the judge and, if so, whether any disclosure or remittal procedure is required.

          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 must also disqualify in any proceeding where the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]), or in other circumstances as required by rule or law (see e.g. Judiciary Law § 14).  For example, a judge must disqualify when the judge knows he/she previously served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][b][i]), that a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][b][ii]), or that the judge has an economic or other interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][c]).

Judge’s Former Law Firm: Calculating the Two-Year Period

          On assuming full-time judicial office, a judge who previously worked for a private law firm must disqualify in all matters involving the law firm, the judge’s former partners and associates, and litigants the judge recognizes as clients of the law firm (see Opinions 18-118; 16-36).  The obligation continues for two years after all business and financial relations between the judge and firm are entirely severed (see Opinions 18-118; 16-36).  In other words, “the two-year period does not begin until the business and financial relationship completely terminates” (Opinion 15-126).  Throughout this period, the judge must not preside unless the disqualification has been properly remitted (see e.g. Opinion 18-118; see also 22 NYCRR 100.3[F]; Opinion 21-22[A]).

          Once the two-year period elapses, and absent any other basis for disqualification, it is within the judge’s discretion whether to recuse in matters involving the former law firm or its clients (see e.g. Opinions 18-46; 17-100; 15-63).  In exercising his/her discretion, the judge should consider all relevant factors (see e.g. Opinions 15-126; 08-133) but nonetheless remains “the sole arbiter of recusal” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]).

Application to the Present Inquiry

          Our starting point is that, after expiration of the applicable two-year disqualification period, the inquiring judge may resume hearing cases involving his/her prior law firm.  Given that fact, we see no impropriety in the judge accepting reassignment of a case where the sole basis for the judge’s prior recusal was the fact that it was originally filed or assigned to the judge during that two-year period.  We understand that any reassignment would be at the behest of the administrative or supervising judge due to the expiration of the two-year recusal period, and not the result of the judge changing his/her mind as to a previously determined recusal decision (cf. Opinion 09-71).  On these facts, the judge may accept the reassigned case, provided he/she can be fair and impartial, and need not make any disclosure nor offer to recuse.

          We note that the judge remains permanently disqualified, without the possibility of remittal, from any case in which the judge participated in any capacity as an attorney, even minimally (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][b][i]; 100.3[F]; Opinions 18-118; 17-150).