Opinion 26-39
March 26, 2026
Digest: A part-time town or village justice who is also a managing attorney for a legal services provider (1) may directly supervise a subordinate attorney in matters before part-time attorney judges of other courts within the same county, only if such supervision takes place in private, without the involvement of the client, opposing parties or counsel, or the presiding court; and (2) may not participate in an internal training for the legal services provider if it will take place in the courtroom of a justice court.
Rules: Judiciary Law §§ 16; 471; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); 100.3(A); 100.6(B)(1)-(5); Opinions 23-103; 22-106; 21-132; 20-64; 16-143; 12-173; 12-44; 09-06.
Opinion:
A part-time town or village justice also works as a managing attorney for a legal services provider, carrying his/her own caseload and overseeing a group of other attorneys. The judge requests guidance on (1) supervising colleagues who appear in courts where the judge cannot personally appear and (2) using a justice court courtroom for the legal services provider’s internal training.
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 judicial duties take precedence over all other activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[A]), and a judge must not “lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others” (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]). Still, a part-time attorney judge may practice law, subject to certain limitations (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B][1]-[5]). For example, a judge “shall not practice law in the court on which the judge serves, or in any other court in the county in which his or her court is located, before a judge who is permitted to practice law” (22 NYCRR 100.6[B][2]). In addition, a judge and his/her partners and associates may not practice in the court where the judge presides, nor handle matters originating in that court (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B][3]; Opinion 12-173; Judiciary Law §§ 16; 471).
1. Supervising Colleagues Who Appear Where the Judge Cannot
The inquiring judge explains he/she is responsible, as managing attorney, “to ensure that the attorneys appearing in court are performing as required.” In the judge’s view, it is necessary to “be[] in court with newer attorneys” in order to be sure “the work is being performed competently.”
Because a part-time judge’s colleagues may appear in some courts where the judge cannot personally appear (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B][3]; Opinions 21-132; 12-173), there are special considerations when a judge supervises other attorneys in such matters. As we advised in Opinion 16-143:
(1) Where a part-time lawyer judge’s law practice associate is representing a client in another court in the same county before another part-time lawyer judge, the judge may not personally participate in the representation by meeting with the client or discussing the case with opposing counsel, even if such activities will take place away from the courthouse. (2) The judge may nonetheless directly supervise a subordinate attorney who is representing the law practice’s clients in such matters, provided such supervision takes place in private, without involvement of the client, opposing parties or counsel, or the court in which the matter is heard.
These principles apply equally to the inquiring judge as a managing attorney for a legal services provider. Thus, if the judge concludes that proper supervision of more junior attorneys in the office requires personally accompanying and/or observing them in court or in meetings with clients or opposing counsel, then he/she must assign another attorney to do so in his/her stead with respect to matters before other part-time attorney judges in the same county. The judge may continue to provide advice, guidance and supervision behind the scenes both to the junior attorneys and any persons assigned to accompany or observe them (see id.).
Should the inquiring judge wish to minimize the number of instances where he/she will be unable to personally accompany newer attorneys, he/she may wish to consider Opinion 09-06 and its progeny. In effect, where a town, village, or city court has at least one full-time or non-lawyer judge, it is ethically permissible to ask “at the outset” – i.e. before the matter has been assigned to any judge – that it be assigned to the full-time or non-lawyer judge (see e.g. Opinions 21-132; 20-64; 09-06).
2. In-House Training in Justice Court Courtrooms
The inquiring judge indicates he/she is also responsible to “oversee” the “professional development” of his/her supervisees. The judge asks if he/she may participate in the legal services provider’s internal training, using either the judge’s own courtroom or another courtroom to develop “practical skills.” The judge asks if he/she may “simply open the courtroom” for the training, or if a colleague at the legal services provider should make the request.
In our view, the judge should not use his/her own courtroom or another justice court’s courtroom for the legal services provider’s internal training, even if the request would be made by a colleague. As the program appears to be the sort of “one-sided” training contemplated in Opinion 12-44, we conclude it would, at the very least, create an appearance of impropriety for the judge to hold such a program in the courtroom of a justice court. Moreover, doing so could also potentially create an impression of favoritism and/or impermissibly lend judicial prestige to the judge’s outside employer (see generally 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]; 100.2[C]; cf. Opinions 23-103; 22-106). Accordingly, the judge should neither request use of a courtroom for the agency’s internal training nor participate if the agency otherwise secures use of the courtroom.
As the judge is a full-time employee of the legal services provider, we note for completeness that the judge may take part in the internal training if it takes place in private and not in a courtroom.