The Rules Governing Judicial Conduct prohibit judges from lending the prestige of their office to advance the private interests of others and from otherwise allowing personal relationships to influence their judicial conduct and judgment. 22 NYCRR 100.2. It is a fundamental principle of the American system of justice that judicial office is a high public trust which may not be traded upon for private gain. This subject is a focal point of virtually every presentation made by representatives of the Commission at judicial ethics and education programs organized for judges and judicial associations around the state. Nevertheless, a significant number of judges have been disciplined in recent years for engaging in such behavior and violating that trust. In the last 20 years, approximately 50 judges have been disciplined in whole or in part for inappropriately asserting the influence of judicial office to benefit themselves or to benefit or harm others.

Most recently, in Matter of Ayres, 30 NY3d 59 (2017), the Court of Appeals upheld the removal of a town justice who attempted (1) to obtain a favorable disposition from another judge and then from a prosecutor as to a traffic ticket issued to his daughter and (2) to influence an appellate judge on a pending matter by repeatedly communicating with the appellate judge, ex parte, on the merits of the case. The Court noted: “When a judge intervenes in another judge’s courtroom, it compromises the court system as a whole. Thus, ‘as a general rule, intervention in a proceeding in another court should result in removal.’” Id at 64.

Also in 2017, the Commission admonished an Acting Supreme Court Justice for twice invoking her judicial office in communications with other courts on behalf of litigants who had pending applications in those courts. See Matter of Ramirez in this annual report.

Any communication by a judge seeking some benefit or advantage on behalf of a friend, relative, former client or anyone else may constitute an improper request for special consideration and should assiduously be avoided. In Matter of Smith, an appellate judge was admonished for sending an unsolicited letter to the parole board in support of an inmate’s application for release, notwithstanding her limited knowledge of the case and her having played no role in the prior adjudication of it. 2014 Annual Report 208. In Matter of Dixon, a city court judge was censured for using her position to initiate improper substantive ex parte communications with the judge presiding over her own personal injury lawsuit against an insurance company. 2017 Annual Report 100. In Matter of LaBombard, a town court justice was removed from office for a variety of misconduct, including identifying himself as a judge after a traffic accident in order to get favorable treatment, and seeking favorable treatment from another judge on behalf of a relative who was a defendant before that judge. 11 NY3d 294 (2008).

A judge’s desire to assist a friend or relative may be understandable, and it may sometimes be difficult to say no when asked for assistance, but as the Court of Appeals said 38 years ago, in the earliest days of the Commission’s existence:

Members of the judiciary should be acutely aware that any action they take, whether on or off the bench, must be measured against exacting standards of scrutiny to the end that public perception of the integrity of the judiciary will be preserved. Matter of Lonschein, 50 NY2d 569, 572 (1980)

In Lonschein, a Supreme Court justice was admonished for inquiring of a municipal agency about the reasons for the delay in a friend's application for a business license. The Court of Appeals held that even a simple inquiry by a judge may be improper because of the perception that the judge is implicitly (if not explicitly) asserting the influence of judicial office to obtain some benefit. The request need not be specific for the assertion of influence to be obvious – and avoided. The standard articulated in Lonschein is as applicable today as it was in 1980. The Commission urges judges to be sensitive to it and thereby avoid the disciplinary consequences of ignoring it.

From the 2018 Annual Report, pages 19-20.