Opinion 25-70

May 15, 2025

Digest:  An officer of a judicial association who was peripherally involved in a law firm’s pro bono representation of the association need not disclose or disqualify in matters where the law firm appears.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); 100.4(I); Opinions 10-145; 94-23; 94-23(a).

Opinion:

          The inquiring full-time judge is the recording secretary of a judicial association which was recently incorporated.  As recording secretary, the judge participated in the incorporation process by signing documents provided by the association’s president and providing a biography to the president.  The association was represented by outside counsel on a pro bono basis, but the inquiring judge did not select or retain the law firm and “had no direct contact” with the attorneys.  After the representation was concluded, however, the judge realized that the law firm is one that regularly practices in the judge’s court.  The judge now asks if disclosure and/or disqualification is required when members of the firm appear and whether the judge must report the law firm’s pro bono work for the judicial association on the judge’s own annual financial disclosure report.

          A judge must 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]).  Thus, a judge must disqualify him/herself in any proceeding where the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).

          We have advised that individual members of a board of judges need not disqualify from matters in which members of a law firm representing the board appear, whether or not the representation is pro bono (see Opinions 94-23; 94-23[a]).  We distinguished between a law firm representing a “board of judges” as opposed to representing “the board members individually” (see id.).

          Subsequently, we recognized that the President of a judicial association may have “a unique relationship” with the specific lawyer who is serving as the judicial association’s pro bono counsel, which “may appear to be more personal to [that judge] than to other members of the Association” (Opinion 10-145).  On the facts presented, given that the lawyer in question did not and would not appear before the judge, we advised that the judge need not disqualify or disclose “when other members of [the same] law firm appear” (id.).

          Here, since the inquiring judge was only peripherally involved in the law firm’s pro bono representation of the judicial association, we conclude the judge’s impartiality cannot “reasonably be questioned” on that basis (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1] [emphasis added]).  Accordingly, neither disclosure nor disqualification is required when the law firm or its attorneys appear before the judge (see Opinion 94-23).

          While compliance with Part 40 reporting requirements is mandatory (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[I]), we refer the judge to the Unified Court System’s Ethics Commission (tel. 212-428-2899) for guidance on whether any particular transaction must be reported.