Opinion 26-30
March 26, 2026
Digest: Where a judge’s social relationship with an attorney has changed over time, the judge has discretion to determine his/her ethical obligations based on his/her assessment of their current relationship, using the categories of Opinion 11-125 as a guide.
Rules: Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(B); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 18-04(A); 15-45; 11-125; People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 (1987).
Opinion:
For approximately two years, the inquiring judge maintained a “close social relationship” with an attorney within the meaning of Opinion 11-125. They never had a “falling out,” but instead found themselves less close as “time and life pass[ed] by.” In recent years, they have not socialized together and are now mere acquaintances who exchange “happy birthday text messages and similar pleasantries.” The judge asks whether social relationships should “be assessed based upon current circumstances” or if an earlier classification of friendship must “remain indefinitely” or for a specified timeframe.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). Thus, a judge must not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]), and must disqualify him/herself where required by rule or law (see e.g. Judiciary Law § 14) and in any other proceeding where his/her impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]). However, where disqualification is not required under objective standards, the judge “is the sole arbiter of recusal” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]).
Whether a judge’s interpersonal relationship with a particular attorney “may reasonably cause [the] judge’s impartiality to be questioned is a fact-specific determination” (Opinion 15-45). Thus, we advised in Opinion 11-125 (citations omitted) that each judge:
is ordinarily in the best position to assess whether his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned when an attorney whom the judge knows socially, with whom the judge is acquainted, or whom the judge considers a friend appears before him/her. This issue is especially challenging because human relationships are so varied, fact-dependent, and unique to the individuals involved. Therefore, the Committee can provide only general guidelines to assist judges who ultimately must determine the nature of their own specific relationships with particular attorneys and their ethical obligations resulting from those relationships. When doing so, a judge should take into account such factors as the nature of his/her relationship with the attorney; the inter-relationships, if any, among and between their respective immediate and close family members; the frequency and context of their contacts; whether they or their respective family members have financial, political or other ties; and whether they or their respective family members share confidences.
To facilitate this process, we defined three broad categories of interpersonal relationships to help judges assess their social relationships with attorneys and determine their ethical obligations: acquaintance, close social relationship and close personal relationship (see id.).
We previously addressed a circumstance where the judge had once been close personal friends with an attorney who was also his/her law partner; they had known each other since childhood. However, “both the professional and social relationships between the judge and his/her former friend completely terminated more than five years ago and the two are no longer on speaking terms” (Opinion 15-45). We advised that a judge “must assess his/her current relationship with a lawyer who was formerly a close personal friend in order to decide if disclosure or disqualification is required in cases where the former friend is personally involved” (id. [emphasis added]; see also Opinion 18-04[A] [discussing obligations with respect to recent public sector colleague and “current social acquaintance”]).
We do not see any reason to require a different result here. Judges should have full discretion to assess the current status and overall context of their interpersonal relationships with attorneys to determine their ethical obligations, rather than relying on a classification of the relationship at some earlier point in time. Given the present reality and dynamics of human relationships, which may gradually evolve, unexpectedly shift, fade away or reawaken, we continue to leave this assessment to each judge’s discretion.