A municipal court judge, and former county bar association president, faces an ethics complaint from the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct over her alleged failure to recuse from cases in which her law office’s landlord appeared before her in court.

According to the complaint, Lilia Munoz, who holds part-time judgeships in Union City and Guttenberg, housed her solo law practice at 545-547 39th St. in Union City from 2005 to 2018. The building’s owner is a company whose principals are attorney Ramon Gonzalez and his spouse. Gonzalez also has his own law office in the same building. During the time that Munoz was a tenant in the building, Gonzalez allegedly appeared as counsel of record before Munoz numerous times in both Union City and Guttenberg.

Munoz, admitted to practice in 1984, is a former president of the Hudson County Bar Association. She practices in the areas of family law, real estate, wills and estates, landlord-tenant law, immigration and bankruptcy.

She did not respond to a request for comment about the ACJC’s complaint Tuesday.

The ACJC charged that Munoz’s longstanding business relationship with Gonzalez created a conflict of interest, or the appearance of one, which required her to recuse from all matters involving Gonzalez.

Munoz “impugned the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary and demonstrated an inability to conform her conduct to the high standards of conduct expected of judges and exhibited poor judgment,” the ACJC said in its formal complaint, made public Tuesday. “Such conduct undermines the public confidence in the Judiciary,” the committee said.

Munoz is accused of violating three canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 1, Rule 1.1, which requires judges to observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved; Canon 2, Rule 2.1, which requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; and Canon 3, Rule 3.17(B), which requires judges to disqualify themselves in proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Munoz also is accused of violating Rule 1:12-1(g), which requires judges to disqualify themselves in proceedings in which there exists anything that might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so.

Munoz initially leased the office from Gonzalez’s father from November 2004 to November 2007. When the lease expired she was not offered a new lease but continued to maintain her law office there on a month-to-month basis, the ACJC complaint said.

Penalties for judges who fail to recuse from cases have varied from mild to severe. In 2010, the Supreme Court imposed an admonition on Gerald Council, a Superior Court judge in Mercer County who conducted a bail hearing for a relative, Celeste Jones, even after recognizing her and acknowledging on the record his familial relationship with her.

And in 2016, the Supreme Court barred former Burlington City Municipal Court Judge Thomas Scattergood from holding future judicial office and imposed a reprimand after he admitted hearing five cases in which he was acquainted with the parties, including the headmaster of a local private school, the owner of a restaurant where the judge regularly dined, the daughter of an employee of the mayor’s office, and a retired sheriff’s officer whose former job had entailed duties as a process server. The disciplinary case against Scattergood also entailed offenses for confiscating a litigant’s mobile phone and for making comments that disparaged women.