Matter of Spector v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 47 N.Y.2d 462 (1979)

Judges must avoid not only actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety in their official conduct, particularly regarding appointments, and cross-appointments of relatives with other judges can create such an appearance, warranting admonishment.

Summary

This case addresses the ethical implications of a judge’s appointments of the sons of other judges during periods when those judges were appointing his son. While no direct quid pro quo was proven, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s determination that such cross-appointments created an appearance of impropriety. The court emphasized that judges are held to a higher standard than the morals of the marketplace and must avoid even the appearance of impropriety to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. The judge was admonished for this conduct.

Facts

A formal complaint was filed against Judge Spector by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, alleging misconduct related to his appointments of attorneys as guardians ad litem, receivers, and referees. The specific concern arose from appointments of Burton Fine, son of Justice Sidney Fine, and Sanford Postel, son of Justice George Postel. During the period in question, Judge Spector appointed Justice Fine’s son twice and Justice Postel’s son four times. Justice Fine appointed Judge Spector’s son eight times, and Justice Postel appointed Judge Spector’s son five times. Judge Spector was aware of these reciprocal appointments.

Procedural History

The Commission on Judicial Conduct served a formal complaint on Judge Spector. A Referee was appointed, who found two of the four charges unsubstantiated. The Referee found that some appointments lacked the appearance of propriety but found no actual impropriety. The Commission determined that cross-appointments created an appearance of impropriety and that admonishment was the appropriate sanction. Three commission members dissented, finding the facts did not warrant discipline. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals for review.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the pattern of cross-appointments between judges, involving their respective sons, created an appearance of impropriety in violation of judicial ethics canons, even in the absence of a proven quid pro quo arrangement?
2. Whether the sanction of admonishment was appropriate for the appearance of impropriety stemming from these cross-appointments?

Holding

1. Yes, because even without a proven agreement, the reciprocal appointments created a circumstantial appearance of impropriety, suggesting each judge was securing appointments for his own son, and attempting to avoid a charge of nepotism.
2. Yes, because reluctance to impose a sanction would be taken as reflecting an attitude of tolerance of judicial misconduct, and judges are to be held to a higher standard.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of avoiding not only actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. It cited Canon 4 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Canon 2 of the present Code of Judicial Conduct, stating: “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities.” The court condemned nepotism and disguised nepotism, stating that the enlarged evil in this instance is that an arrangement for cross appointments would not only offend the antinepotism principle; it would go a step further, seeking to accomplish the objectives of nepotism while obscuring the fact thereof.

The court noted that the community is entitled to insist on a demanding standard of behavior from judges, referencing Chief Judge Cardozo’s statement in Meinhard v. Salmon: “A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior.” The court rejected the argument that the conduct should be excused due to a possible existing modus operandi. The court explicitly stated it was improper for the administrator to introduce evidence of additional alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner on arguments of the motions addressed to the Referee’s report, in connection with the commission’s consideration of the sanction to be imposed. Despite this impropriety, the Court of Appeals accepted the commission’s determination and admonished the judge.