Counsel for Witnesses at Hearings
NY-ADR
2/20/19 N.Y. St. Reg. JDC-08-19-00006-P
NEW YORK STATE REGISTER
VOLUME XLI, ISSUE 8
February 20, 2019
RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES
STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
PROPOSED RULE MAKING
NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED
I.D No. JDC-08-19-00006-P
Counsel for Witnesses at Hearings
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:
Proposed Action:
Addition of section 7000.6(i)(3) to Title 22 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Judiciary Law, section 42(5)
Subject:
Counsel for witnesses at hearings.
Purpose:
To codify the practice that a witness may have legal counsel present during a commission hearing.
Text of proposed rule:
A new paragraph of subdivision (i) of section 7000.6 is added to read as follows:
(3) At a hearing, counsel for a witness may be present while his or her client is testifying and may request permission of the referee to consult with the client, but may not object to questions, examine or cross-examine witnesses or otherwise participate in the proceedings.
Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Marisa E. Harrison, Commission on Judicial Conduct, Corning Tower, Suite 2301, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223, (518) 453-4600, email: [email protected]
Data, views or arguments may be submitted to:
Same as above.
Public comment will be received until:
60 days after publication of this notice.
Regulatory Impact Statement
1. Statutory authority: Judiciary Law, Section 42(5).
2. Legislative objectives: The proposed change would clarify that counsel for a witness may be present while his or client is testifying at a Commission hearing, and may request permission of the referee to consult with the client, but may not object to questions, examine or cross-examine witnesses or otherwise participate in the proceedings.
3. Needs and benefits: The proposal seeks to clarify ambiguities and better reflect actual Commission practice that allows a witness to have counsel present during Commission hearings.
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. the legal representation of witnesses at Commission hearings – 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. the legal representation of witnesses at Commission hearings – does not address, create or impact upon any jobs.
| End of Document |