A New York family law judge charged with misconduct by the local judicial commission recently agreed to retire from the bench.

The judge faced charges of failure to disclose conflicts with attorneys who frequently appeared before her. As alleged, the judge frequently exchanged text messages, socialized, traveled internationally, and otherwise interacted socially with attorneys (and their family members) who appeared in her courtroom.

Likewise, she allegedly failed to disclose that an attorney who frequently appeared before her was married to a member of the judge’s staff. The commission administrator commented that the goal must be to maintain public confidences and, to do so, “judges must be and appear to be impartial.”

The situation raises some interesting questions. Many attorneys are encouraged to interact with the judiciary, to co-present educational materials, and to support one another on social issues and causes outside of the courtroom. In the specific context of family law practitioners, it has been said that “familiarity” with “the local family courts and judges…can play a pivotal role in the outcome of your case.” Given that the stakes are high, “having an attorney who knows the ins and outs of the local legal system can provide a significant advantage.”

The question remains, however, when does “familiarity” go too far? Attorneys should be mindful as the risks of conflicts are often hidden, some are more apparent. On the one hand, judges are people with independent relationships off-the-bench. That said, when facing a similar situation, the best practice may be to proceed with caution and, when in doubt, disclose.