Opinion 26-53
March 26, 2026
Digest: A judge need not recuse when the law firm of a court officer’s fiancé(e) appears before the judge. Neither insulation nor disclosure is required.
Rules: Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(B); 100.3(E)(1); Opinion 19-74; People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 (1987).
Opinion:
The inquiring judge has learned that the court officer assigned to his/her part is engaged to an attorney whose law firm regularly appears before the judge, and now asks if he/she may hear cases brought by that firm.[1] The court officer provides security services, “checks in” attorneys, hands stipulations to the court, and sometimes exits the courtroom to find an attorney when a case is called. The court officer is not the judge’s personal appointee and does not participate in research or substantive discussions of cases.
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 disqualify him/herself when his/her impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]). If disqualification is not mandated under objective standards, the judge “is the sole arbiter of recusal” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]).
We have recognized that some court employee conflicts may impact a judge’s ability to remain on a case (see Opinion 19-74). For example, “if a lawyer appearing before the judge has certain familial or attorney/client contacts with the judge’s court attorney, law clerk, secretary, or court clerk, disclosure and insulation are required” (id. [citations omitted]). We noted that “these court employees’ official duties involve them materially in processing the judge’s cases” (id.).
By contrast, the duties of court officers do not generally include research or substantive discussions on a case. Thus, we have advised that a judge need not recuse when a court officer’s personal attorney appears on behalf of other clients, nor is insulation or disclosure required (see id.). As we observed:
[T]he court officer role, by its nature, is presumptively excluded from substantive case-related activities [and] there is little risk of a public perception that this court officer might participate in or otherwise influence the deliberations or resolution of the judge’s cases. Nor could the public reasonably question a court officer’s ability to give professional and competent security services in the courtroom, whether in response to exigent circumstances or as directed by the judge, merely because his/her personal attorney is present with another client. Thus, we see no value in requiring the judge to exclude the court officer from the courtroom or disclose the attorney-client relationship in such matters.
The same analysis applies here. Thus, we conclude that, assuming the judge can be fair and impartial, he/she need not disqualify him/herself when the court officer’s fiancé(e)’s law firm appears before the judge. Further, the judge need not disclose the court officer’s personal relationship, nor exclude the court officer from the courtroom.
[1] It seems that the attorney fiancé(e)’s name has appeared on “papers and motions.”