Opinion 03-71

September 4, 2003

Digest:         A judge should not accept appointment as a college’s “distinguished jurist in residence” when the program is funded by law firms that may appear before the judge.

Rule:            22 NYCRR 100.2(A); 100.4(A)(1); 100.4(B).

Opinion:

         A judge who is a member of a selection committee for a college’s “distinguished jurist in residence” program asks whether it is ethically permissible for a judge to accept an appointment to serve as a “distinguished jurist in residence”. The program is funded by several law firms. The distinguished jurist receives a stipend fixed by the college and, during his or her tenure, would participate in a number of college functions, both social and instructional in nature, to which members of the law firms providing funding will be invited. The extent of the judge’s participation in such functions would range from attendance to serving as the featured speaker.

         In accordance with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, a judge may engage in extra-judicial activities such as speaking, writing, lecturing and teaching [22 NYCRR 100.4(B)], so long as those activities do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge. 22 NYCRR 100.4(A)(1).

         In applying these provisions to the matter at hand, the Committee is of the opinion that a judge should not accept appointment as a college’s “distinguished jurist in residence” when the program is funded by law firms that may appear before the judge. To do so would create an appearance of impropriety and, might well erode public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, especially since the amount of the stipend is not insubstantial. 22 NYCRR 100.2(A).