NYPRR | September 2007

JudicialEthicsInNewYorkState(Part1) BYJEREMYR.FEINBERG

RegularreadersofNYPRRarewellawareoftheNewYorkCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,which
governsattorneysprofessionalconduct,andoftheriskofdisciplineforviolationsoftheCode.Attorneys areoftenmuchlessfamiliar,however,withtheguidelinesanddisciplinaryproceduresgoverningthe ethicalconductofthemorethan3,000fullandparttimejudgesandjusticesinNewYorkState.Overthe courseofthistwopartarticle,Iwilldescribethisethicslandscapetohelpeducateattorneyswhomust appearincourt,orinteractwithjudgesonasocialorothernonadjudicativebasis.Inthisfirstpart,Iwill discussthestatutoryandregulatoryframework(primarilytheRulesGoverningJudicialConductand certainprovisionsoftheJudiciaryLaw),andprovideanoverviewoftheinterpretationandenforcement mechanisms.Thesecondpartwilladdressseveralspecificjudicialethicsissueslawyersmaycommonly encounterintheirdealingswithjudges.

TheStatutoryFramework
A.TheRulesGoverningJudicialConduct InNewYorkState,theRulesGoverningJudicialConduct,22NYCRRPart100(theRules),setstandards fortheethicalconductofjudgesandcandidatesforjudicialoffice,aswellascertainquasijudicial employeesofthecourtsystem,suchasJudicialHearingOfficers.TheseRules,basedlargelyonthe AmericanBarAssociationsModelCodeofJudicialConduct,notonlyprovideguidancebutalsosetforth certainbindingobligations,theviolationofwhichcanresultindisciplinaryactionbytheNewYorkState CommissiononJudicialConduct(theCommission).Theyareintendedtohelpmaintaintheintegrityof thejudiciaryandtoensurethatjudgesupholdtheirdutiesasneutralarbitersofthelaw.Notevery transgressionwarrantsdiscipline,however,astheRulesareintendedtoberulesofreason.22NYCRR 100,Preamble.Justasinthedisciplinaryprocessforattorneys,factorssuchastheseriousnessofthe transgression,thefrequencyofoccurrence,andtheeffecttheconducthasonthefunctioningofthe judicialsystem,determinewhichsanctions,ifany,shouldbeimposed.Id. LiketheNewYorkCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichfocusesonalawyersbehaviorbothin andoutofoffice,theRulesdelineateappropriateconductnotonlyintheperformanceofthejudges judicialduties,butinthejudgeseverydaylifeaswell.Infact,theRulesspecificallyaddresscertain activitiesthejudgemaywishtoundertakeasamemberofthecommunityandasaprivatecitizen,such asattendingpoliticalgatherings,speakingatbarassociationprograms,orwritingexclusiveofjudicial opinions.Firstandforemost,theRulesrequirethatajudgemustupholdtheintegrityandindependence ofthejudiciarythroughmaintainingandenforcinghighstandardsofconduct,(22NYCRR100.1),and requireajudgetoavoidimproprietyandtheappearanceofimproprietyinallofthejudgesactivities. 22NYCRR100.2(emphasisadded).Theseallencompassingprovisionsrequirejudgesatalltimestobe cognizantoftheirobligationsasmembersofthejudiciary. OnlySection100.3directlyaddressesjudicialduties.Becauseajudgemustperformtheseimpartially

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.TheJudiciaryLaw TheRules,however,arenottheonlysourceofethicalguidelinesforNewYorkStatejudges.Certain sectionsoftheNewYorkStateJudiciaryLawalsoaddresstheethicalconductofjudges.Amongother things,Article2oftheJudiciaryLawcoversdisqualification,practiceoflawbyparttimejudges,conflicts withjudicialduties,andtheappointmentoflawguardians.See,NYJud.Law1420;35(7).Inaddition, theJudiciaryLawestablishesaCommissiononJudicialConductaswellasanAdvisoryCommitteeon JudicialEthics,toenforceandtointerprettherulesgoverningtheethicalconductofjudges.NYJud.Law 41;212(2)(l).Bothoftheseadministrativebodiesarediscussedbelow.

DisciplinaryProcedures
A.TheCommissiononJudicialConduct Sohowarejudgesdisciplined?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,morethan500complaintswere closedafterajudgesresignation,andalmost400wereclosedafterjudgesvacatedtheiroffices. SummaryofComplaintsConsideredsincetheCommissionsInception,MandateandHistory,supra. TheCommissionsobjectiveistoholdNewYorkStatejudgestothehigheststandardsofethicalconduct whileatthesametimesafeguardingtheindependenceofthejudiciary.Thereare11membersonthe

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.

InterpretationoftheRules 1. TheAdvisoryCommitteeonJudicialEthics
TheRulesGoverningJudicialConductandtheCommissionsdeterminationsarenotanexhaustiveguide forproperjudicialconduct.Thereareconstantlynewandemergingissuesrequiringinterpretation.It maybethatnovelfactpatternsdevelop,orthatanethicsquestionisnotspecificallyaddressedinthe RulesorpriorCommissiondeterminations.Fortunately,since1987,therehasbeenaninterpretative body:theAdvisoryCommitteeonJudicialEthics(theACJEortheCommittee).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

212(2)(l)(iii).Further,theCommitteesopinionsprovidestatutoryprotectionforjudgesandjudicial candidates,inthatactionsofanyjudge...takeninaccordancewithfindingsorrecommendations containedinanadvisoryopinionissuedbythepanelshallbepresumedproperforthepurposesofany subsequentinvestigationbythestatecommissiononjudicialconduct.Id.at212(2)(l)(iv). AlthoughtheCommitteeactsasaresourceforindividualjudgesconcernedwithmaintainingtheethical standardstowhichtheyarebound,ACJEopinionsalsoprovideguidanceforthestatejudiciaryasa whole,affordingjudgesthecomfortofknowingpreciselywhatisexpectedoftheminsituationsnot alwaysneatlycoveredintheRulesorpastprecedentsoftheCommissionorCourtofAppeals.The opinionsoftheACJEareavailableasaresourceinafreesearchabledatabaseonthewebsiteoftheNew YorkStateUnifiedCourtSystem,atwww.NYcourts.gov(clickonJudgesandthenJudicialEthics Opinions.)SomeoftheACJEopinionsarepublishedintheNewYorkLawJournalandmayalsobe foundonLexisandWestlaw.

2.TheJudicialCampaignEthicsCenter
Judgesaregenerallyprohibitedfromengaginginmosttypesofpoliticalactivity.Duringacampaignfor electivejudicialoffice,however,judgeandnonjudgecandidatesforjudicialofficehavemoreleeway,as setforthinSection100.5oftheRulesGoverningJudicialConduct.ThisSectionenumeratesprohibited politicalactivity,butalsodescribesthelimitedpoliticalactivitythatcandidatesforjudicialofficemay undertakeaspartoftheircampaigns.Thispermissiblepoliticalactivityisonlyallowedduringa candidateswindowperiod,aspecificperiodoftimewhichrunsatleastfifteenmonthsintheelection cycleinwhichthecandidateisseekingoffice.22NYCRR100.0(Q).

BecauseofthenarrowandspecificwaysinwhichtheRulesGoverningJudicialConductapplyto campaignsforjudicialoffice,andthecorrespondingfrequencyofrecurringissueslikelytoarise throughoutacampaign,theNewYorkStateUnifiedCourtSystemestablishedtheJudicialCampaign EthicsCenter(theJCEC)intheFallof2004.AsliaisontoasubcommitteeoftheACJE,theJCECissues quickandreliableadvicetojudicialcandidatesconcerningcampaignrelatedissuessotheycanplantheir campaignsandrelatedactivitiesinanethicalmanner.Thus,asethicalquestionsemergeduringthe courseofacampaign,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.

Inadditiontoitsroleasaproviderofrealtimeethicsadvice,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.

Conclusion
NowthatyouveseenthebasicethicsframeworkinvolvingjudicialconductinNewYorkState,the secondpartofthisarticlewilladdressspecificissuesthatattorneysmayencounterintheircontactswith judges. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ JeremyR.FeinbergistheStatewideSpecialCounselforEthicsfortheNewYorkUnifiedCourtSystem.Hewould liketothankhiscolleaguesMaryritaDobiel,LauraSmithandRebeccaAdamsfortheirinsightandsuggestionsthat immeasurablyimprovedthisarticle.Theviewsexpressedinthisarticlearethoseoftheauthoronlyandarenotthose oftheOfficeofCourtAdministrationorUnifiedCourtSystem.
Copyright 2008 The New York Professional Responsibility Report (NYPRR)