Judicial Ethics in New York State _Part 1

8/6/2019 Judicial Ethics in New York State _Part 1

1/5

RegularreadersofNYPRRarewellawareoftheNewYorkCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichgovernsattorneys professionalconduct,andoftheriskofdisciplineforviolationsoftheCode.Attorneys

areoftenmuchlessfamiliar,however,withtheguidelinesanddisciplinaryproceduresgoverningthe

ethicalconductofthemorethan3,000fullandparttimejudgesandjusticesinNewYorkState.Overthe

courseofthistwopartarticle,Iwilldescribethisethicslandscapetohelpeducateattorneyswhomust

appearincourt,orinteractwithjudgesonasocialorothernonadjudicativebasis.Inthisfirstpart,Iwill

discussthestatutoryandregulatoryframework(primarilytheRulesGoverningJudicialConductand

certainprovisionsoftheJudiciaryLaw),andprovideanoverviewoftheinterpretationandenforcement

mechanisms.Thesecondpartwilladdressseveralspecificjudicialethicsissueslawyersmaycommonlyencounter

in

their

dealings

with

judges.

TheStatutoryFrameworkA.TheRulesGoverningJudicialConductInNewYorkState,theRulesGoverningJudicialConduct,22NYCRRPart100(the Rules),setstandards

fortheethicalconductofjudgesandcandidatesforjudicialoffice,aswellascertainquasijudicial

employeesofthecourtsystem,suchasJudicialHearingOfficers.TheseRules,basedlargelyonthe

AmericanBarAssociationsModelCodeofJudicialConduct,notonlyprovideguidancebutalsosetforth

certainbindingobligations,theviolationofwhichcanresultindisciplinaryactionbytheNewYorkState

CommissiononJudicialConduct(the Commission).Theyareintendedtohelpmaintaintheintegrityof

thejudiciaryandtoensurethatjudgesupholdtheirdutiesasneutralarbitersofthelaw.Notevery

transgressionwarrantsdiscipline,however,astheRulesareintendedtobe rulesofreason. 22NYCRR

100,Preamble.Justasinthedisciplinaryprocessforattorneys,factorssuchastheseriousnessofthe

transgression,thefrequencyofoccurrence,andtheeffecttheconducthasonthefunctioningofthe

judicialsystem,determinewhichsanctions,ifany,shouldbeimposed.Id.LiketheNewYorkCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichfocusesonalawyer sbehaviorbothin

andoutofoffice,theRulesdelineateappropriateconductnotonlyintheperformanceofthejudges

judicialduties,butinthejudgeseverydaylifeaswell.Infact,theRulesspecificallyaddresscertain

activitiesthejudgemaywishtoundertakeasamemberofthecommunityandasaprivatecitizen,such

asattendingpoliticalgatherings,speakingatbarassociationprograms,orwritingexclusiveofjudicial

opinions.Firstandforemost,theRulesrequirethatajudgemust upholdtheintegrityandindependence

ofthejudiciary through maintainingandenforcinghighstandardsofconduct, (22NYCRR100.1),andrequireajudgeto avoidimproprietyandtheappearanceofimproprietyinallofthejudgesactivities.

22NYCRR100.2(emphasisadded). Theseallencompassingprovisionsrequirejudgesatalltimestobe

cognizantoftheirobligationsasmembersofthejudiciary.OnlySection100.3directlyaddressesjudicialduties.Becauseajudgemustperformthese impartially

NYPRR | September 2007

JudicialEthicsInNewYorkState(Part1)BYJEREMYR.FEINBERG


2/5

anddiligently, thissectionoutlinesthejudgesofficialduties,suchasdecidingcases;performing

administrativedutiessuchasappointingstaff;dischargingdisciplinaryresponsibilities,suchasreporting

themisconductofothers;andobservingobligationsregardingrecusalanddisqualification.22NYCRR

100.3(A)(E).TheremainderofPart100limitscertainextrajudicialactivities,instructingjudgestoavoidconflicts

betweentheirjudicialandnonjudicialconduct.Section100.4generallyprohibitsextrajudicialactivities

thatriskconflictwithjudicialobligations,includingthosethatmaycastdoubtonajudgesabilityto

remainimpartial,detractfromthedignityoftheoffice,orotherwiseinterferewiththeproper

performanceofjudicialduties.22NYCRR100.4(A).Similarly,Section100.5,whichfocusesonjudgesand

candidatesforelectivejudicialoffice,prohibitspoliticalactivityexceptinlimitedcircumstances,inorder

tomaintaintheimpartialityofthebenchandtopreventpoliticalbiasorpartisaninterestsfromswaying

thejudgesdecisionmaking.B.TheJudiciaryLawTheRules,however,arenottheonlysourceofethicalguidelinesforNewYorkStatejudges.Certain

sectionsoftheNewYorkStateJudiciaryLawalsoaddresstheethicalconductofjudges. Amongotherthings,Article2oftheJudiciaryLawcoversdisqualification,practiceoflawbyparttimejudges,conflicts

withjudicialduties,andtheappointmentoflawguardians.See,NYJud.Law1420;35(7).Inaddition,

theJudiciaryLawestablishesaCommissiononJudicialConductaswellasanAdvisoryCommitteeon

JudicialEthics,toenforceandtointerprettherulesgoverningtheethicalconductofjudges.NYJud.Law

41;212(2)(l).Bothoftheseadministrativebodiesarediscussedbelow.DisciplinaryProceduresA.TheCommissiononJudicialConductSohowarejudgesdisciplined?Whoinvestigatescomplaintsagainstthem?Priortothe1970s,differentcourtsthroughoutthestateenforcedjudicialdisciplineinNewYork.This

system,whichreliedonjudgestodisciplinetheircolleagues,provedineffective,resultinginthe

disciplineofonly23judgesintheonehundredyearsbeforetheestablishment,in1974,ofatemporary

commissiontoinvestigateandprosecutejudicialmisconduct.CreationoftheNewYorkState

CommissiononJudicialConduct,MandateandHistory,at

http://www.scjc.state.NY.us/general%20information/gen%20info%20Pages/mandate&history.htm

(lastvisitedJuly27,2007).ThecurrentCommissionreplaceditstemporarypredecessorasof1978,

followingaconstitutionalamendmentandlegislativeenactment,passedin1976.NYSConst.Art.VI,22;

NYJud.Law41.Intheyearssinceitsinception,theCommissionhasconsideredmorethan30,000

complaintsandconductedover6,000investigations.Ofthese,morethan800resultedindisciplinary

action,over1,200resultedincautionaryletterstothejudgeinvolved,morethan500complaintswereclosedafterajudgesresignation,andalmost400wereclosedafterjudgesvacatedtheiroffices.

SummaryofComplaintsConsideredsincetheCommissionsInception,MandateandHistory,supra.TheCommissionsobjectiveistoholdNewYorkStatejudgestothehigheststandardsofethicalconduct

whileatthesametimesafeguardingtheindependenceofthejudiciary.Thereare11membersonthe


3/5

Commission.Thegovernorappointsfour,theChiefJudgeoftheCourtofAppealsthree,andfour

Legislatorsappointonemembereach.NYJud.41.TheLawCommissionsstatedpurposeistoreceive,

initiateandinvestigatecomplaintsfiledagainstjudgesinNewYorkState.MembershipandStaffat

MandateandHistory.TheCommissionmeetsandreviewscomplaintsagainstjudgesseveraltimesayear.Itmaydecideto

dismissortoinvestigateacomplaint,orauthorizestaffattorneystocommenceinvestigationsandtofile

formalcharges.ThestaffmaynotundertakeeitherfunctionwithouttheCommissionspriorpermission.

ProceduresatMandateandHistory.Duringinvestigationsbythestaff,thejudgeinvolvedmayrespondto

theallegationsinwriting,andifrequiredtoappearatahearing,maygivetestimonyunderoath.The

judgeisentitledtoberepresentedbycounselandmayalsosubmitevidentiarydatafortheCommissions

consideration.TheCommissionwillissueaformalwrittencomplaintonlyiftheinvestigationdetermines

thatahearingiswarranted.Thecomplaintcontainsspecificchargesofmisconduct,anduponissuance,

commencesformaldisciplinaryproceedings.Id.Inresponsetotheformalcharges,ajudgeorthejudges

counselmaysubmitlegalmemorandaandpresentoralargumentontherelevantissues.TheCommission

willthendeliberatewithoutthepresenceoftheregularstaff...ifitdeterminesthatdisciplineis

warranted,theCommissionmayadmonish,censure,removefromoffice,orretireajudge(fordisability).

TheCommissionmayalsoissueaconfidentialletterdismissingthecomplaint,butcautioningthejudge.Id.AjudgewhoischargedwithformaldisciplinehasthirtydaystorequestreviewbytheCourtofAppeals.The

CourtmayacceptorrejectanyoftheCommissionsfindings,ormakeadifferentdetermination,andeven

imposeasanctiondifferentfromthatrecommendedbytheCommission.Ifthejudgedoesnotrequestareview

afterthirtydays,theCommissionsdeterminationbecomeseffective.TheCommissionsformaldeterminations

areavailableontheinternetathttp://wwwscjc.state.NY.us/Determinations/alldecisions.htm.Theyarealso

publishedyearlyinboundvolumes.InterpretationoftheRules1. TheAdvisoryCommitteeonJudicialEthicsTheRulesGoverningJudicialConductandtheCommissionsdeterminationsarenotanexhaustiveguide

forproperjudicialconduct.Thereareconstantlynewandemergingissuesrequiringinterpretation.It

maybethatnovelfactpatternsdevelop,orthatanethicsquestionisnotspecificallyaddressedinthe

RulesorpriorCommissiondeterminations.Fortunately,since1987,therehasbeenaninterpretative

body:theAdvisoryCommitteeonJudicialEthics(the ACJE orthe Committee).TheACJEsmandateis

toprovideguidanceontheRules,theJudiciaryLaw,andotherrelevantauthority,astheyapplyto

specificjudicialconduct.In1988,theLegislaturecodifiedcreationoftheACJEinJudiciaryLaw212

(2)(l).Currently,Hon.GeorgeD.Marlow,AssociateJusticeoftheAppellateDivision,FirstDepartment,is

thechairofthe26membercommittee,andretiredFirstDepartmentAssociateJusticeHon.BettyEllerin

andHon.JeromeC.Gorski,AssociateJusticeoftheAppellateDivision,FourthDepartment,serveasthe

CommitteesViceChairs.TheACJEincludesbothsittingandretiredjudgesandjusticesfromvirtuallyeverylevelofcourtwithin

theUnifiedCourtSystemandissupportedbyseveralstaffcounsel.Itissuesformalopinions,basedon

individualinquiriesfromsittingjudgesandcandidatesforjudicialoffice.Theinquiries,theinquiring

judgesidentity,andtheCommitteesdeliberationsremain,bylaw,completelyconfidential.NYJud.Law


4/5

212(2)(l)(iii).Further,theCommitteesopinionsprovidestatutoryprotectionforjudgesandjudicial

candidates,inthat actionsofanyjudge...takeninaccordancewithfindingsorrecommendations

containedinanadvisoryopinionissuedbythepanelshallbepresumedproperforthepurposesofany

subsequentinvestigationbythestatecommissiononjudicialconduct. Id.at212(2)(l)(iv).AlthoughtheCommitteeactsasaresourceforindividualjudgesconcernedwithmaintainingtheethical

standardstowhichtheyarebound,ACJEopinionsalsoprovideguidanceforthestatejudiciaryasa

whole,affordingjudgesthecomfortofknowingpreciselywhatisexpectedoftheminsituationsnot

alwaysneatlycoveredintheRulesorpastprecedentsoftheCommissionorCourtofAppeals.The

opinionsoftheACJEareavailableasaresourceinafreesearchabledatabaseonthewebsiteoftheNew

YorkStateUnifiedCourtSystem,atwww.NYcourts.gov(clickon Judges andthen JudicialEthics

Opinions. )SomeoftheACJEopinionsarepublishedintheNewYorkLawJournalandmayalsobe

foundonLexisandWestlaw.2.TheJudicialCampaignEthicsCenterJudgesaregenerallyprohibitedfromengaginginmosttypesofpoliticalactivity.Duringacampaignfor

electivejudicialoffice,however,judgeandnonjudgecandidatesforjudicialofficehavemoreleeway,as

setforthinSection100.5oftheRulesGoverningJudicialConduct.ThisSectionenumeratesprohibited

politicalactivity,butalsodescribesthelimitedpoliticalactivitythatcandidatesforjudicialofficemay

undertakeaspartoftheircampaigns.Thispermissiblepoliticalactivityisonlyallowedduringa

candidates windowperiod, aspecificperiodoftimewhichrunsatleastfifteenmonthsintheelection

cycleinwhichthecandidateisseekingoffice.22NYCRR100.0(Q).BecauseofthenarrowandspecificwaysinwhichtheRulesGoverningJudicialConductapplyto

campaignsforjudicialoffice,andthecorrespondingfrequencyofrecurringissueslikelytoarise

throughoutacampaign,theNewYorkStateUnifiedCourtSystemestablishedtheJudicialCampaign

EthicsCenter(the JCEC)intheFallof2004.AsliaisontoasubcommitteeoftheACJE,theJCECissues

quickandreliableadvicetojudicialcandidatesconcerningcampaignrelatedissuessotheycanplantheir

campaignsandrelatedactivitiesinanethicalmanner.Thus,asethicalquestionsemergeduringthecourseofacampaign,thecandidate(oranauthorizedcampaignrepresentative)canwritetotheJCECfor

realtimeethicaladvice.AfivejudgesubcommitteeoftheACJEreviewseachinquiryandresponse,and

formallyapprovestheadvicethatgoestothecandidate.TheJCECsresponsesarenotavailableinsearchableformatastheJCEC,unliketheACJE,doesnot

publishitsresponses.Boththeunderlyinginquiryandtheresponsearekeptconfidential.Evenifan

inquiringcandidatesharesananswerfromtheJCECwithothers,itprovidesnopresumptionofproper

ethicalconductforanyothercandidate.Indeed,astheresultofawrittenagreementbetweenthe

CommissionandtheACJE,anJCECresponseprovidesasafeharboronlytotheparticularcandidatewho

submitsaninquiryandisvalidonlyforconductduringthesamecampaignseason.Evenifmultiple

candidateshavethesame,oraverysimilarquestion,eachmustcallorwriteinforanindividualanswer

ifheorshewishestohavethebenefitoftheanswersprotection.See

http://www.NYcourts.gov/ip/JCEC/faq.shtml.Sometimes,however,theACJEwillissueopinionson

questionsthatarefrequentlypresentedtotheJCEC,thusallowingallcandidatesforjudicialofficetorely

onthatpublishedguidance.


5/5

Inadditiontoitsroleasaproviderof realtime ethicsadvice,theJCECalsoeducatesjudicialcandidates

andthevotingpublicinseveralways.Online,theJCECsummarizeskeycampaignethicsrulesand

publishedopinions,andhighlightssignificantchangesintheethicslandscape;providesinformationand

linksaboutcourtrulesaffectingjudicialcandidates,includingthecourtsystemsfinancialdisclosure

requirementsandthecourtorganizedscreeningpanels;andcompilescandidateinformationintoanon

linevoterguideforthegeneralelection.Offline,theJCECalsodesignsandimplementsthemandatory

trainingforjudicialcandidatesabouttheircampaignethicsresponsibilities(required,since2006,by

Section100.5(A)(4)(f)oftheRules)andrespondstogeneralmediainquiries.ConclusionNowthatyouveseenthebasicethicsframeworkinvolvingjudicialconductinNewYorkState,the

secondpartofthisarticlewilladdressspecificissuesthatattorneysmayencounterintheircontactswith

judges.____________________________________________________________________________________________JeremyR.FeinbergistheStatewideSpecialCounselforEthicsfortheNewYorkUnifiedCourtSystem.Hewould

liketothankhiscolleaguesMaryritaDobiel,LauraSmithandRebeccaAdamsfortheirinsightandsuggestionsthat

immeasurablyimproved

this

article.

The

views

expressed

in

this

article

are

those

of

the

author

only

and

are

not

those

oftheOfficeofCourtAdministrationorUnifiedCourtSystem.

Copyright 2008 The New York Professional Responsibility Report (NYPRR)

Documents

Judicial Ethics in New York State _Part 1