Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-57
A judge may invite attorneys to his/her wedding, provided that the attorneys are not on trial before the judge at the time of the event. The judge may also invite members of law enforcement to the wedding. For two years after the wedding, the judge must disclose when a wedding guest appears in the judge’s court.
November 12, 2024 at 12:00 AM
5 minute read
The Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics responds to written inquiries from New York state's approximately 3,600 judges and justices, as well as hundreds of judicial hearing officers, support magistrates, court attorney-referees, and judicial candidates (both judges and non-judges seeking election to judicial office). The committee interprets the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 100) and, to the extent applicable, the Code of Judicial Conduct. The committee consists of 28 current and retired judges, and is co-chaired by the Honorable Debra L. Givens, an acting justice of the supreme court in Erie County, and the Honorable Lillian Wan, an associate justice of the appellate division, second department.
Digest: A judge may invite attorneys to his/her wedding, provided that the attorneys are not on trial before the judge at the time of the event. The judge may also invite members of law enforcement to the wedding. For two years after the wedding, the judge must disclose when a wedding guest appears in the judge’s court.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (B); 100.3(E)(1); 100.4(D)(5)(d); Opinions 23-85; 22-138; 11-125; 11-101; 07-141; 06-44; People v. Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 (1987); 2006 Ann Rep of NY Commn on Jud Conduct at 193.
Opinion: A judge who was previously employed by a not-for-profit legal services provider is marrying an individual who is employed in law enforcement. The judge first asks if it is ethically permissible to invite the judge’s former public sector attorney colleagues, attorneys who were on the assigned counsel panel, and the future spouse’s law enforcement colleagues to attend their wedding. The judge notes that some of the attorneys may appear before the judge, while the law enforcement personnel currently do not. The judge further asks if it will be necessary to disclose or disqualify after the wedding when any such wedding guests appear before the judge.
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]). Therefore, 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 in matters where “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).
It is generally ethically permissible for judges to attend social events with attorneys. For example, in Opinion 22-138, we advised that a judge may attend the wedding of an attorney who regularly appears in the judge’s court, provided the attorney is not on trial before the judge at the time of the event. We further advised that, for two years thereafter, the judge must disclose his/her attendance as a wedding guest when the attorney appears in the judge’s court (see id.; see also generally Opinions 11-101 [judge may attend the wedding of an assistant district attorney who, when initially hired, regularly appeared before judge for approximately one year and still appears before judge occasionally]; 07-141 [judge may attend a party for the spouse of a public defender who regularly appears before the judge, and a religious function for the daughter of a law guardian who regularly appears before the judge, unless either counsel is presently on trial before the judge]; 06-44 [judge may attend wedding of attorney who regularly appears before him/her, and give the couple a gift, but should not attend when attorney is on trial before the judge]; cf. 2006 Ann Rep of NY Commn on Jud Conduct at 193, 194 [when a respondent judge had a close social relationship with an attorney, “[a]t the very least, respondent should have disclosed the relationship so that the parties and their attorneys, could have had an opportunity to consider whether to seek his disqualification”]).
Considering the foregoing, we conclude that this judge may invite attorneys to the wedding, including the judge’s former public sector attorney colleagues, provided that such attorneys are not on trial before the judge at the time of the wedding. For two years after the wedding, if an attorney who was a wedding guest appears in a case, the judge must disclose such attendance. [1]
It is likewise ethically permissible for the judge to invite the future spouse’s law enforcement colleagues to attend the wedding. The mere fact that a member of law enforcement attended a judge’s wedding does not, in and of itself, preclude such judge from presiding over a matter involving that individual, as long as the judge can be fair and impartial. However, if a wedding guest appears before the judge within two years after the wedding, we advise that the judge must disclose their attendance. Absent any other basis for disqualification, the judge is “the sole arbiter of recusal” and this “discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court” (People v. Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]). [2]
Lastly, we note that a judge may accept a gift from a friend or relative for a special occasion such as a wedding, anniversary or birthday, “if the gift is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship” (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5][d]).
***
[1] Apart from the wedding attendance, the judge may have further obligations based upon his/her relationship with the attorney (see Opinion 11-125).
[2] As a reminder, where a judge’s law enforcement officer spouse “does not hold a supervisory role and is not involved in a particular criminal matter, neither disclosure nor disqualification is required” (Opinion 23-85). However, “[o]nce the judge’s spouse is promoted, the judge must also disqualify from matters involving law enforcement personnel under the spouse’s supervision” (id.).
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllReported Refusal to Officiate Gay Wedding Prompts Review by NY Judicial Misconduct Watchdog
NY Judicial Watchdog: Westchester County Trial Court Judge Tried to Interfere in Divorce Case on Behalf of Friend's Law Firm
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250