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 27 current and retired judges, and is co-chaired by the Honorable Margaret Walsh, a justice of the supreme court, and the Honorable Lillian Wan, a court of claims judge and acting supreme court justice.

Digest: (1) Where an attorney persists in sending emails to the court and opposing counsel concerning a case, despite a court order disqualifying the attorney from the representation due to an ethical conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge must take appropriate action. (2)(a) If, on considering all relevant circumstances, the judge determines that the misconduct seriously calls into question the attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, the appropriate action is to report the attorney to the disciplinary committee. (b) Conversely, if the judge determines the misconduct does not reach that level of egregiousness, the judge has discretion to take less severe appropriate measures which may include, but are not limited to, counseling or warning the lawyer, reporting the lawyer to their employer, or sanctioning the lawyer.

Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(D)(2); 22 NYCRR part 1200, Rules 3.4(a)(6), 3.4(c), 8.4(a); Opinions 16-46; 10-122; 10-85.