Opinion 25-138
November 6, 2025
Digest: Where a part-time judge’s law firm represents creditors against numerous judgment debtors: (1) once the law firm files suit against a judgment debtor on behalf of a client, the judge must disqualify from any cases in which the client’s current litigation adversary appears as a party; (2) if the law firm has not yet filed such lawsuit, the judge need not disqualify in a matter merely because it involves a potential future litigation adversary of the judge’s client; (3) the propriety of undertaking client representations unrelated to matters originating in the town court is primarily a matter of attorney ethics.
Rules: Judiciary Law §§ 14, 16-17, 471; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(a)-(f); 100.3(F); 100.6(B)(2)-(4); Opinions 24-200; 24-164; 22-166; 20-172; 20-48; 18-163; 13-54; 13-02; 12-173; 07-212; 05-30; 92-40.
Opinion:
A part-time lawyer judge is also a partner in a law firm with a high-volume practice in the area of creditor’s rights. On behalf of its creditor clients, the law firm sues judgment debtors to enforce money judgments. These collection lawsuits are filed in other courts where the judge or his/her partners and associates are permitted to appear and seek relief such as garnishing of wages or seizure of assets. The judge asks if it is ethically permissible to preside over small claims actions involving a litigant against whom the judge’s law firm, on behalf of a client, has filed a civil action in a different court, or a litigant against whom the judge’s law firm may file a future lawsuit. The judge also asks if he/she or the judge’s law firm may file or litigate an action against a litigant who has previously appeared before the judge. If any of the above is not permissible, the judge asks if the conflict can be waived after disclosure.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). Thus, a judge is disqualified in any proceeding where the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]), including in specific circumstances required by rule or law (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][a]-[f]; Judiciary Law § 14). Unlike a full-time judge, a part-time judge may practice law, subject to certain limitations (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B][2]-[4]; Judiciary Law §§ 16-17; 471). For example, a part-time judge must “not practice law in the court on which the judge serves” (22 NYCRR 100.6[B][2]), may not represent clients in matters that “originated in” the judge’s court (see e.g. Opinion 12-173), and may not appear before another part-time lawyer judge in the same county (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B][2]).
1. Client’s Current Litigation Adversary
The judge first asks if he/she may preside over small claims actions involving a litigant against whom the judge’s law firm, on behalf of a client, has filed a civil action in a different court.
We have advised that a part-time attorney judge need not disqualify in matters involving his/her attorney adversaries, i.e., the opposing counsel who represent clients adverse to the judge’s client (see e.g. Opinions 20-48; 92-40).
In our view, there is an important distinction between a part-time lawyer judge’s interactions with opposing counsel whose adversarial stance is professional, and a litigant or party who is personally involved in a legal dispute. In Opinion 07-212, where a part-time judge “represent[ed] a client in a civil lawsuit against a defendant” in the defendant’s personal capacity as a private individual, we concluded the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” in all matters involving the client’s litigation adversary, including where he/she appeared as a law enforcement officer (see Opinion 07-212). Accordingly, we advised that the judge should disqualify him/herself from those matters, subject to remittal (see id.).
Here, we reach the same conclusion. Thus, the inquiring judge is disqualified, subject to remittal, in all matters involving a judgement debtor against whom the judge’s law practice has filed an action, as the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (see Opinion 07-212; 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]). We also note that the judge “must adopt reasonable procedures” to avoid conflicts due to his/her law practice (Opinions 22-166; see also Opinion 13-54).
As a reminder, “[w]here a judge knows that a ground for disqualification exists, the judge must disqualify at the outset” and “cannot preside in that matter” unless the disqualification is properly remitted (Opinion 24-164 [citations omitted]). Remittal under Section 100.3(F) is a three-step process that requires the voluntary affirmative consent of the parties and, if represented, their counsel. First, the judge must fully disclose the basis for disqualification on the record. Second, without the judge’s participation, the parties who have appeared and not defaulted and (if represented) their lawyers must all agree that the judge should not be disqualified. Third, the judge must independently conclude that he/she can be impartial and be willing to participate in the case. If all three steps are satisfied, the judge may accept remittal of disqualification and must incorporate the parties’ and their attorneys’ agreement into the record of the proceeding (see Opinion 24-164; 22 NYCRR 100.3[F]).
2. Client’s Potential Future Litigation Adversary
The judge asks if it is ethically permissible to preside in small claims actions involving a litigant who may be a defendant in a future lawsuit that the judge’s private law firm may file.
Again, a part-time lawyer judge “must adopt reasonable procedures” to avoid conflicts due to his/her law practice (Opinion 22-166; see also Opinion 13-54).
In our view, the inquiring judge need not disqualify himself before an actual conflict has arisen and a lawsuit has been filed.
3. Client Representations Unrelated to Matters Originating in the Town Court
Part-time lawyer judges are permitted “wide latitude in their legal practice as long as they adhere to the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct” (Opinions 24-200; 18-163). Accordingly, we take no position as to whether this judge, in his/her role as a private attorney, may bring civil suits against persons who previously appeared as litigants before the judge in his/her judicial capacity in cases that are no longer pending. Provided the matters are entirely unrelated to matters originating in the town court (see e.g. Opinions 20-172; 13-02; 12-173; Judiciary Law § 16), that question is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct, which we are not authorized to construe (see Opinions 07-212; 05-30).