Opinion 25-136

September 10, 2025

Digest: (1) A judge who is also employed as an adjunct professor at a law school must disqualify from all matters involving the law school.  Where the law school’s affiliated university is a separate legal entity, the judge need not disqualify from matters involving the university.  Should the judge’s outside employment with the law school result in frequent disqualifications, the judge must choose between the positions.

            (2) A judge whose law clerk is employed as an adjunct professor at a law school must insulate the law clerk from all matters involving the law school, but not its affiliated university, provided the university is a separate legal entity.  The judge must disclose the insulation and the reason for it to the parties.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 50.3(a); 100.0(D); 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(A); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(c); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(B); 100.4(H)(1)(c)(2); Opinions 25-98; 24-107; 23-233; 23-14; 19-143; 15-23; 09-127; 92-09.

Opinion:

          The inquiring full-time judge is currently employed as an adjunct professor at a law school, where the judge co-teaches a course with his/her law clerk for compensation.  The judge asks if he/she must disqualify in any case involving the law school or the university affiliated with the law school.  As the judge considers discontinuing this outside employment, the judge also asks about his/her obligations if the law clerk continues teaching the course without the judge.  Finally, the judge notes that his/her law clerk will also assume part-time judicial office within the same judicial district a few months from now, and asks if that changes the analysis.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge’s extra-judicial activities, including teaching, must be compatible with judicial office and must not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s impartiality, detract from the dignity of judicial office, or interfere with proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]; 100.4[B]).  A judge must disqualify in a proceeding where the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]), including when the judge “has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][c]).  “Economic interest” includes “a relationship as officer, director, advisor or other active participant in the affairs of a party” (22 NYCRR 100.0[D]).

          We have advised that a full-time judge may teach law-related classes for compensation at a college or university, provided that such teaching does not conflict with the proper performance of judicial duties (see Opinions 23-233; 19-143; 22 NYCRR 100.4[H][1][c][2]).  We have also recognized that “a law clerk similarly may, as a general rule, speak, write, and lecture on the law” (Opinion 09-127).

          In Opinion 15-23, a full-time judge who taught at a law school asked if he/she could ethically appoint the law school’s clinic to fiduciary positions.  We advised that, because the clinic was a separate legal entity, “the judge’s impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned in matters involving the clinical program” (id.).  We noted, however, that “the judge may be an ‘active participant’ in the law school due to his/her employment by the school” (id.).  More recently, while addressing a different issue, we observed that “specific factual connections in a particular case may warrant disqualification or disclosure, as when (for example) the matter involves the educational institution that employs the judge” (Opinion 25-98).

          Here, we conclude that a judge who is employed as an adjunct professor at a law school must disqualify in any case involving the law school.  The judge is not, however, required to disqualify in matters involving the university affiliated with the law school, provided it is a separate legal entity (cf. Opinion 15-23).  Should the judge’s employment as an adjunct professor result in frequent disqualification, then the judge must choose between the positions (see Opinion 92-09; 22 NYCRR 100.3[A] [judge’s judicial duties must “take precedence over all the judge’s other activities”]).

          The judge’s second question focuses on his/her obligations if the judge’s law clerk continues to teach the course after the judge ceases employment with the law school.  When a judge’s staff member has a conflict, “it is ordinarily sufficient to insulate the staff member and disclose the insulation” (Opinion 23-14 [citations omitted]).  Accordingly, the judge need not disqualify in matters involving a law school at which his/her law clerk is an adjunct professor, but must insulate the law clerk from all matters involving the law school.  The judge must also disclose the insulation and the reason for it to the parties.  Again, this obligation does not extend to the law school’s affiliated university, provided the university is a separate legal entity. 

          The inquiring judge’s obligation to insulate his/her law clerk from matters involving the law school will not be affected when the law clerk assumes part-time judicial office. 

          For completeness, we note that the law clerk may contact the Nonjudicial Ethics Helpline (1-888-283-8442) for guidance on seeking advance written permission for dual employment as a part-time judge and may of course contact us for guidance on his/her own obligations under Part 100 going forward (see e.g. Opinion 24-107; 22 NYCRR 50.3[a]).