Threats by litigants to judges and their family members are not sufficient cause for recusal, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has ruled.  [Thankfully,] The decision of the committee - which is made up of 26 active and retired judges - is not binding. "This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court," the panel wrote, citing People v. Moreno, a 1987 ruling from the Appellate Division, Second Department.  Chairman George Marlow, a former First Department justice, wrote the 3-paragraph opinion for the panel. The unnamed judge who sought the committee's advice submitted an affirmation to the prosecutor in support of a criminal contempt charge after a defendant threatened the judge and his family.  The judge maintained that he or she could remain impartial while presiding over the remainder of the case. Marlow noted that 2 previous committee opinions had addressed the issue.  In 1999, the panel found that a Family Court judge who was harassed by a litigant and filed a complaint against her could still preside over the case.  George Marlow, who also wrote for the panel in that ruling, said: "Among the circumstances to be considered by the judge is whether recusal might be deemed an encouragement for litigants to engage in extreme actions in order to secure the removal of a judge from a case." Six years later, the committee held that judges must disclose on the record when litigants have threatened to kill them, but may still preside over the case as their consciences permit.  [Reuters, 3/1/12]