Ethics complaint against state’s top judge dismissed

The Commission on Judicial Conduct dismissed an ethics complaint against Chief Judge Rowan Wilson over his advocacy for the Second Look Act. File photo by David Handschuh/OCA

By Noah Powelson

New York’s top judge will not face any consequences for advocating for the passage of a sentencing reform bill, which Republican lawmakers claimed crossed an ethical line.

An ethics complaint filed against Chief Judge Rowan Wilson was dismissed by the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct after they determined New York’s top judge was well within his right to speak on pieces of legislation concerning New York’s legal system. Both Wilson and the Republic lawmakers who filed the ethics complaint against him were notified of the decision on July 7.

The ethics complaint filed by Republican lawmakers focused on comments Wilson made in support of the Second Look Act – a sentencing reform bill – during a February symposium at the CUNY School of Law.

The ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Anthony Palumbo, and his colleagues argued Wilson’s advocacy had crossed veered into politics the political realm, casting doubt on the chief judge’s ability to act impartially.

But in a confidential July 7 letter from the CJC obtained by the Eagle, the commission said that chief judges are allowed to both advocate and propose legislation, as long as it concerns the legal system.

“Judges and candidates for judicial office are explicitly permitted by the rules to speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in extra-judicial activities concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice,” the letter read. “Because the Second Look Act concerns the law, the legal system and the administration of justice, it was permissible for the Chief Judge to speak publicly about it and/or to advocate for its passage.”

Chief judges in the past have repeatedly introduced and advocated legislation concerning the law, like when former Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman proposed the Raise the Age Act. Wilson’s own advocacy of the Second Look Act was well within his rights and did not violate his ethical obligations, the commission ruled.

Wilson is still required to keep his speech and advocacy within the rules of judicial conduct, as are all judges in the state. In reviewing Wilson’s comments, the CJC determined certain statements could be concerning.

During the symposium, Wilson referred to the state’s current criminal sentencing practices as “stupid” and expressed disapproval for how certain judges approached sentencing, but that he and Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas were limited in how they could change that. Wilson also quoted an unnamed judge who referred to a defendant as an “animal [that] should be put in a cage for the rest of [his] life” during sentencing. Wilson then told audience members they could find out who those judges are and urged them not to vote for them.

“Don’t vote for them and get other people not to vote for them,” he said. “That’s something you can do for me and for [Chief Administrative] Judge [Joseph] Zayas.”

In response to the ethics complaint, Wilson sent a letter to the commission on March 30 to explain the statements he made during the CUNY symposium, conceding that some of his words were poorly chosen.

“I wish I had been clearer: after saying that Judge Zayas and I lack any real ability to address such situations, I should have said that the voters have that ability and should become informed and express their preferences through the electoral process,” Wilson said in the letter to the commission.

The commission determined that Wilson’s language in his March 30 letter was what he intended to convey. The commission also determined Wilson did not advocate for voting against any specific judge by name.

Finding no ethical breaches, the commission dismissed the complaint.

Palumbo did not respond to a request for comment.

Wilson has long advocated for the passage of the Second Look Act, dedicating his entire 2025 State of the Judiciary address to the reform. The bill would give New Yorkers serving lengthy prison terms an opportunity to have their sentences reviewed. No current process for challenging potentially excessive sentences exists – unless the sentence was handed down illegally.

“Overincarceration has everything to do with the courts,” Wilson said in 2025. “No prosecutor, no jury, no legislator or executive branch official imposed a prison sentence. Everyone sentenced to prison in New York was sentenced by a judge of the Unified Court System.”

In addition to his comments about the state’s sentencing practices at the symposium, Wilson said that for decades, judges have issued out large sentences to defendants they know little about. Even if an incarcerated person reforms themselves for the better while locked up, there are few ways for them to contribute to society, he said.

“None of us are really very good about predicting the future, but the system depends on what I consider a stupid assumption that judges can do that,” Wilson said during the symposium.

The comments irked Palumbo and seven other Republican lawmakers – State Senators Andrew Lanza, Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Steven Rhoads and Assemblymembers Michael Tannousis, John Mikulin, Keith Brown and Doug Smith – who said Wilson’s comments resembled that of a politician and not a judge.

State Senator Anthony Palumbo and other Republican lawmakers brought the ethics complaint against Chief Judge Wilson in March. Screenshot via New York Assembly Republican Conference/Facebook

“[Judges] must project that image of neutrality and not suggest that they lean one way or another, whether for a particular party or not, because that is the nature of the beast,” Palumbo said in March. “And if you can't do that, you should be a legislator and not a judge.”

The CJC has the sole power to discipline judges based on their findings, ranging from public warnings to forcing the judge to resign from the bench.

While the Commission on Judicial Conduct collects all complaints against judges in New York, it rarely launches a formal investigation. In 2025, the commission received over 3,300 complaints and launched 141 investigations, according to the commission’s recent annual report.

The commission does not disclose whether or not a complaint has been elevated to an investigation until it reaches a public decision and potential punishment, which could include an admonition, censure, removal from office or forced retirement.

In 2025, around 30 complaints involving 20 different judges resulted in the judges’ resignation, and 43 complaints involving 23 different judges resulted in formal charges being authorized.