Opinion 25-126

September 10, 2025

Digest:  A judge running for election or re-election to judicial office who discovers that a non-attorney campaign treasurer may have misused campaign funds does not have an ethical obligation to report the alleged misconduct, since the individual is neither an attorney nor a judge.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(D)(1)-(2); Opinions 23-120; 19-90; 16-25.

Opinion:

          A sitting judge seeking election or re-election to judicial office discovered that their campaign treasurer may have misused campaign funds.  The judge reported the incident to the board of elections and the police.  The treasurer is not an attorney, but is enrolled in law school and is employed by a law firm as a law clerk or paralegal.  The judge asks if he/she must take further steps concerning the alleged misuse of funds, such as notifying the treasurer’s law school or employer.  The judge further asks whether, if there is no obligation to take such steps, it is ethically permissible to notify the school and/or employer.

          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 who receives information indicating a “substantial likelihood” that a lawyer or another judge has committed a “substantial violation” of the applicable professional ethics rules must “take appropriate action” (22 NYCRR 100.3[D][1]-[2]).

          We have consistently advised “[a] judge’s disciplinary obligations refer only to ‘a lawyer’ or ‘another judge,’ and thus a judge need not report criminal or other misconduct by persons who are neither lawyers nor judges” (Opinion 23-120 [citations and quotation marks omitted]; see also Opinion 16-25 [citing prior opinions]).  The obligation to report attorney misconduct does not extend to non-attorney paralegals (see Opinion 19-90).

          A judge always has the discretion to report misconduct, even where not obligated to do so by the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (see e.g. Opinions 23-120; 19-90; 16-25).

          The inquiring judge therefore has no ethical obligation to take further action, but may do so in his/her sole discretion.