“While legal expertise is invaluable, evaluating judicial candidates also requires understanding the real-world context in which judges serve. Fathers who have navigated Family Court can provide firsthand knowledge of how the system affects families—perspective that no resume alone can capture.”
Family court in lower Manhattan. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)
In early January, Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced via a press release the appointment of Ali Najmi, Esq. as chair of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary (MACJ), a little-known judicial body responsible for recruiting, screening, evaluating, and recommending candidates to the mayor for city court appointments, including child support judges.
The press release highlighted Mr. Najmi’s commitment to making the judicial selection process more inclusive. This includes engaging a broader segment of the legal community, such as public defenders, attorneys representing parents and children in Family Court, and those working in indigent legal services. While encouraging, true inclusivity presents an opportunity to strengthen the commission further by including parents—particularly fathers—whose lives are directly shaped by child support court decisions.
The MACJ currently has 19 members: nine are directly selected by the mayor, including the committee chair, and 10 are appointed from nominations by other entities—four by the chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, four by the presiding justices of the First and Second Judicial Departments (two each), and two by law school deans.
Mamdani’s Executive Order No. 6, which revitalized the MACJ, allows appointees to be New York City residents, individuals who work in the city, or those with strong ties to the city’s legal community. The order also says committee membership “shall reflect the full breadth of the legal profession” and include experience in areas such as criminal defense, family law, representation of parents and children in Family Court, civil rights, indigent legal services, and complex civil litigation.
While legal expertise is invaluable, evaluating judicial candidates also requires understanding the real-world context in which judges serve. Fathers who have navigated Family Court can provide firsthand knowledge of how the system affects families—perspective that no resume alone can capture. Notably, the executive order says committee membership “shall reflect the full breadth of the legal profession,” not that it must be limited to it. This distinction allows the mayor to include nontraditional but highly relevant voices—such as representatives from fatherhood and shared parental rights organizations—especially as the administration commits to broader outreach and inclusion.
Fatherhood organizations bring community-based insight into how families experience judicial decisions in Family Court. This perspective is a legitimate and necessary qualification for advisory work. Advisory bodies benefit from multiple viewpoints, especially when court decisions affect everyday people. One non-judicial example is the inclusion of community councils in selecting precinct commanders for local police stations. Each council, mostly made up of non-law enforcement members, uses civilian experience to evaluate candidates and ensure the public is treated with courtesy and respect.
Similarly, judicial temperament and fairness cannot be judged by legal credentials alone. People with lived experience can see how judges treat parents, people representing themselves in court, and other vulnerable populations. Someone who works daily with fathers navigating Family Court can spot red flags or strengths not visible on a resume—hidden ideas about parental roles, intolerance toward people representing themselves, or a lack of understanding of working parents’ economic realities.
Fatherhood representatives can also notice strengths in candidates: patience and clarity when addressing parents representing themselves, encouraging cooperative co-parenting, and distinguishing high-conflict disputes from real risks to children. These insights complement legal expertise, helping MACJ recommend judges who are both legally competent and aware of families’ real-world needs.
So how could fatherhood representatives be included in the MACJ? As mayor, Mamdani controls the nine direct appointments. He could invite organizations that advocate for shared parental rights to recommend candidates for some of these seats—groups such as Real Dads Network in East Harlem, The Dad Gang in the Bronx, and other fatherhood organizations doing vital work citywide. Law school deans, who nominate two members, could also consider recommending paralegals who work with families in court. While not licensed attorneys, paralegals bring practical legal knowledge and firsthand insight into how judges interact with parents and vulnerable populations, ensuring real-world perspectives are included.
Including fatherhood and shared parental rights representatives alongside legal professionals would help the MACJ recommend judges who are not only legally qualified but also fair, balanced, and aware of the realities families face daily. True inclusivity in judicial selection is more than a policy goal—it is an opportunity to strengthen fairness, equity, and public trust in our city’s courts.
Leon Tulton is a member of Real Dads Network, a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to strengthen the institution of the family by empowering fathers through support, resources, and advocacy.
The post Opinion: Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary Needs More Than Lawyers appeared first on City Limits.
