The committee on Judicial Ethics responds to written inquiries from New York state’s approximately 3,400 judges, who serve both full- and part-time. The committee’s opinions interpret the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22NYCRR, Part 100) and the Code of Judicial Conduct. The committee, comprised of 27 current and retired judges and headed by former associate justice George D. Marlow of the Appellate Division, also answers inquiries about proper campaign conduct from candidates for elective judicial office. The New York Law Journal publishes selected recent opinions of the committee.
Digest: (1) Where a judge has no direct personal knowledge whatsoever about purported misconduct of another judge or attorney, he/she has particularly wide discretion to make a threshold decision, based on information the judge has already received, of whether there is a “substantial likelihood” of a substantial violation under all the circumstances currently known to him/her. (2) If a judge believes the information he/she has is mere rumor, gossip, or innuendo, or is otherwise not sufficiently reliable or credible to warrant further consideration, the “substantial likelihood” prong is not met, and the judge is not ethically required to take any action at all. (3) Conversely, if the judge concludes, in his/her sole discretion, that the “substantial likelihood” prong is met, he/she must then consider whether the “substantial violation” prong is met and, if so, must also determine what action is appropriate under the circumstances presented. Rules: Judiciary Law §§ 14; 212(2)(l); 22 NYCRR 100.2(A); 100.3(D)(1), (2); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(a)(I); 100.3(F); 101.1; Opinions 14-150; 14-140; 14-88; 14-86; 13-146;11-116; 11-87; 11-64; 10-122; 10-86; 10-85; 09-142; 08-183/08-202/ 09-112; 08-198; 08-146; 08-83; 07-129; 07-82; 06-168; 06-99; 06-19/06-29; 05-37; 00-64; 98-95; People v. Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 (1987); Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963).
