A City Court Judge was recently censured by the New York state Commission on Judicial Conduct for serving as his daughter’s lawyer on three occasions in Albany Family Court. Daughter
The judge also invoked his position as a judge on more than one occasion to demonstrate his knowledge of the law. The state Commission found that the judge’s conduct came “close to warranting removal” but that censure was appropriate because he admitted that his conduct was inappropriate and subject to discipline.
The judge first appeared in Albany Family Court on Nov. 2, 2015 seeking to have a petition dismissed against his daughter. The judge presiding over the case dismissed the petition, with prejudice. Four months later, the judge appeared again on behalf of his daughter claiming that he was eligible to practice law in his own family’s cases. His comments were later rebuked by the supervising judge for the city courts of the Ninth Judicial District, who informed the judge that that the rules of judicial conduct prohibit a full-time judge from practicing law.
The supervising judge was referring to Section 100.4(G) of New York’s Rules of Judicial Conduct, which states that full-time judges can give legal advice to family members without compensation, but they “shall not practice law.”
The Rules of Judicial Conduct are designed to prevent favoritism, as pointed out by Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission administrator. “It is bad enough for a full-time judge to practice law, even on behalf of a family member.” Tembeckjian continued. “Repeatedly mentioning one’s own judicial status during the proceedings compounds the original misconduct and comes across as an obvious attempt to influence the trial judge.”
Nonetheless, Tembeckjian concluded that the judge “has admitted wrongdoing, and the Commission believes he deserves another chance.”
Meanwhile, not every member of the commission agreed with Tembeckjian. Marvin Ray Raskin wrote in a separate opinion that he would have removed Judge Edwards from the bench. He further stated, “[The] conduct was neither inadvertent nor miscalculated. Rather, it was purposeful and strategic.”
