JDC-47-15-00006-P Practice of Law Before the Commission
11/25/15 N.Y. St. Reg. JDC-47-15-00006-P
NEW YORK STATE REGISTER
VOLUME XXXVII, ISSUE 47
November 25, 2015
RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES
STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
PROPOSED RULE MAKING
NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED
I.D No. JDC-47-15-00006-P
Practice of Law Before the Commission
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:
Proposed Action:
Addition of section 7000.14(d) to Title 22 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Judiciary Law, section 42(5)
Subject:
Practice of law before the commission.
Purpose:
To prohibit the practice of law before the commission, by commission members, their law firms and former commission members.
Text of proposed rule:
A new subdivision of section 7000.14 is added to read as follows:
(d) Practice of law before the commission. No commission member shall represent a judge or witness, or otherwise serve as counsel, before the commission while serving as a member of the commission. The foregoing prohibition shall also apply to the law firm, partners and associates of a member of the commission. No commission member may represent a judge or witness, or otherwise serve as counsel, before the commission for a period of two years after ceasing to serve as a member of the commission.
Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Marisa E. Harrison, Commission on Judicial Conduct, 61 Broadway, Suite 1200, New York, New York 10006, (646) 386-4800, email: harrison@cjc.ny.gov
2. Legislative objectives: The proposal articulates situations in which a Commission Member and/or his or her law firm, partners and associates would be prohibited from representing a judge or witness before the Commission.
3. Needs and benefits: The proposal enhances public confidence in the fairness of Commission proceedings by prohibiting a Commission Member and/or his or her law firm, partners and associates from representing judges or witnessed before the Commission, and by prohibiting former Commission members from doing so for a period of two years after their service as Commission members ends.
4. Costs: None.
5. Local government mandates: None.
6. Paperwork: None.
7. Duplication: None.
8. Alternatives: None.
9. Federal standards: None.
10. Compliance schedule: None.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Effect of rule: These are internal agency operating rules concerning disciplinary proceedings against judges. No small businesses or local governments are affected.
2. Compliance requirements: None.
3. Professional services: None.
4. Compliance Costs: None.
5. Economic and Technological Feasibility: Not applicable.
6. Minimizing adverse impact: There is no economic impact on small businesses or local governments.
7. Small business and local government participation: This internal agency operating rule concerning disciplinary proceedings against judges do not involve small businesses or local governments.
8. For rules that either establish or modify a violation or penalties associated with a violation: Not applicable.
9. Initial review of the rule, pursuant to SAPA § 207 as amended by L. 2012, ch. 462: Not applicable.
Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
This proposal will not impose any adverse economic impact on rural areas or reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on public or private entities in rural areas. This proposal contains internal agency operating rules concerning disciplinary proceedings against judges of the state unified court system. The agency analyzed the plain language of the proposed rule and concluded that the subject matter – i.e. prohibiting a Commission member and/or his or her law firm, partners or associates from representing a judge or a witness before the Commission, and prohibiting a former Commission member from doing so for a period of two years after the end of his/her tenure as a Commission member – is not addressed to rural areas and, in any event, contains no reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Job Impact Statement
This proposal will not impose any adverse impact on jobs and employment opportunities. This proposal contains internal agency operating rules concerning disciplinary proceedings against judges of the state unified court system. It does not add or eliminate any jobs, nor does it impose or modify any responsibilities associated with existing jobs. The agency analyzed the plain language of the proposed rule and concluded that the subject matter – i.e. prohibiting a Commission member and/or his or her law firm, partners or associates from representing a judge or a witness before the Commission, and prohibiting a former Commission member from doing so for a period of two years after the end of his/her tenure as a Commission member – does not address, create or impact upon any jobs.
