Litigation

Restrictive Recusal Rule Adopted in New York

By Peter Hardin

New York State soon will implement a new rule to remove the influence of money from state judicial elections, and it appears to be the toughest rule of its type in the country.

Adopted by the Administrative Board of the Courts, the rule will prohibit hundreds of elected judges from hearing cases involving parties or lawyers who gave $2,500 or more to their campaigns in the prior two years, according to a New York Times article.

To be formally announced Tuesday, the rule confronts head-on the issue of money in judicial elections, which has “drawn widespread attention,” the article reported. It predicted the rule “will change the political culture of courts and transform judicial elections by removing an important incentive lawyers have for contributing.”

There are more than 700 elected trial-level judges in New York. Campaign fundraising in the state has fueled complaints and corruption claims, and the rule is aimed at preserving the integrity of the courts.

Under the rule, the issue of disqualification, or recusal, will be removed from judges’ hands.  When the rule takes effect, ?no case shall be assigned? by court administrators to a jurist when a lawyer or  participant has given $2,500 or more during the past two years.

Chief New York Judge Jonathan Lippman pushed for adoption of the measure and said he believes it’s needed to protect fair courts in his state. Judge Lippman said:

?Nothing could be more important for the judiciary than to have the public see that we?re neutral arbiters of disputes.

?If we don?t have that, we don?t have anything.?

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2009 drew national attention to the importance of judges stepping aside from hearing a case in certain situations. In that ruling, Caperton v. Massey, the Supreme Court declared that campaign spending can damage a litigant?s right to a fair trial, and it required a West Virginia Supreme Court justice to disqualify himself from an appeal involving a major campaign benefactor.

A national push to give scrutiny to contributions to judicial campaigns got momentum after Caperton. (See recent Gavel Grab post about the American Bar Association looking at model rules for reform, and support voiced by Justice at Stake.)

Calls for reform in New York have come during much of the past decade. In 2003, a commission pointed to ?the problematic nature of having judges raise money from the lawyers that appear before them.?

In some states, judges have turned back efforts to require them to recuse over political donations. These judges have said that their deciding whether they can rule impartially on a case is a tenet of judicial independence.

To learn more about recusal reform, check out Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic. Justice at Stake has supported stronger recusal rules, as unprecedented levels of campaign cash are being spent in state judicial elections by parties who appear in court.

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 14, 2011 (boomark / email).