In re Fitzgerald, 1 N.Y.3d 53 (2003)
A judge must maintain their qualification as a lawyer throughout their term in office, as continued qualification is an implicit requirement of the New York State Constitution.
Summary
This case addresses whether a judge who is disbarred during their term in office can continue to serve as a judge. The New York Court of Appeals held that a judge must remain qualified as a lawyer throughout their term, not just at the time of assuming office. The court reasoned that the constitutional requirement that a judge be a lawyer to assume office implies a continuing requirement to maintain that qualification to protect the integrity of the judicial office. Edmund G. Fitzgerald, Jr., a City Court Judge, was removed from his position after being disbarred for misconduct related to his attorney escrow account management.
Facts
Edmund G. Fitzgerald, Jr., was a Judge of the City Court of Yonkers. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct sustained a charge of misconduct against him. Fitzgerald was disbarred based on “serious professional misconduct” related to the management of his attorney escrow account. The Commission concluded that Fitzgerald violated the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and lacked the qualifications to perform his judicial duties.
Procedural History
The Administrator of the Commission moved for summary determination, which the Commission granted, sustaining the factual allegations of misconduct. After briefing and oral argument, the Commission concluded that Fitzgerald violated sections 100.1, 100.2(A), and 100.3(B)(1) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and lacked the qualifications to perform his judicial duties. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Commission’s determination.
Issue(s)
Whether a judge who is disbarred during their term in office continues to meet the constitutional requirements for holding judicial office under Article VI, Section 20(a) of the New York State Constitution.
Holding
No, because the constitutional requirement that a judge be admitted to practice law in the state to assume office implies a continuing requirement that the judge remain qualified as a lawyer throughout their term.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on its prior decision in Ginsberg v. Purcell, 51 N.Y.2d 272 (1980), which interpreted the same constitutional subdivision. In Ginsberg, the Court held that the requirement that a judge be a lawyer to assume office implies a continuing requirement to maintain that qualification, not only intellectually but also in character and fitness, to protect the integrity of the judicial office. The Court stated, “[t]he constitutional requirement that to assume office a Judge must be a lawyer can * * * be viewed as impliedly requiring, in order to protect the integrity of the Judge’s office, that he not only be a lawyer when he assumes office but that he continue to be qualified as a lawyer, not only intellectually but also in character and fitness.”
The Court reasoned that allowing a disbarred individual to continue serving as a judge would be an “anomalous result” that would “reflect poorly on the judiciary” and “invite scorn and disrespect for our rule of law,”(quoting Matter of Mitchell, 40 N.Y.2d 153, 156 (1976)). The court explicitly rejected Fitzgerald’s argument that meeting the qualification at the time of assuming the bench was sufficient, regardless of subsequent disbarment. The Court concluded that Fitzgerald’s disbarment rendered him unable to meet the continuing constitutional prerequisite to holding judicial office.