Rule helps judges in New York stay above reproach
New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman Credit: AP
If a lawyer or litigant funneled money through a middleman to a judge who later presided over his case, it would ordinarily be time to call the prosecutors. But if the money is a contribution to the judge's campaign organization during a race for election, then it's perfectly legal, ethical and customary. That needs to change. . . .
-- Newsday editorial, Sept. 3, 2010
Now it's about to change. Under a new rule announced yesterday by state Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, judges will no longer be assigned to the cases of attorneys or litigants who have contributed $2,500 or more to their campaigns in the past two years.
Judges have long had an ethical duty to remain unaware of who gave money to their campaigns. It was an imperfect approach now outstripped by technology that allows judges, and anybody with a legal case and a laptop, to find out in minutes who contributed to a campaign. "Foreclosing even the appearance of impropriety is absolutely central to maintaining public confidence in the judiciary," Lippman said.
More far-reaching reforms would be public campaign financing for judicial races to eliminate the need for fundraising; or eliminating judicial elections altogether, replacing them with merit selection.
But for now, the new rule is right on the money.
