Opinion:

         A judge asks whether he/she may provide a letter of recommendation for an attorney who regularly appears in the judge’s court and is seeking new employment. The judge also asks whether he/she may, at the District Attorney’s request, provide a victim impact statement setting forth his/her views as to sentence only, when an attorney who forged the judge’s signature on several court documents appears for sentencing.

         A judge must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the judge’s activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge must not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others and must not testify voluntarily as a character witness (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).

         With respect to the letter of reference, the judge asks whether he/she may give the attorney a letter that is addressed to “To Whom It May Concern” with a notation indicating that the letter is “personal and unofficial”; what he/she may say about the attorney; whether the attorney needs to advise the judge each time he/she presents the letter to a potential employer and of the potential employer’s identity; and, what, if any, issue could arise if the other attorneys who appear in the judge’s court are potential employers to whom the attorney will present the judge’s letter.

         The Committee previously has advised that a judge may write a letter of reference for an attorney who has appeared before the judge regularly as assistant district attorney that is confined to the judge’s personal knowledge of the attorney’s professional performance (see Opinion 94-36 [Vol. XII] [judge’s letter speaks of attorney’s performance and dedication and concludes that performance speaks well of attorney]). In the Committee’s view, such a letter did not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the attorney’s private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]; Opinion 94-36 [Vol. XII]). But, where a potential employer also regularly appears in the judge’s court, a judge’s letter on behalf of a job applicant could result in an appearance of impropriety and might permit one to reasonably question the judge’s ability to be impartial (see Opinion 88-53 [Vol. II]). Therefore, the Committee recommended that the judge either authorize the job candidate to provide the judge’s name to the potential employer who then may contact the judge directly for a reference or to provide the job applicant with a letter addressed to “To Whom It May Concern” (see id.). However, the Committee suggests such a letter be used only in the limited circumstances described or when otherwise necessary because the judge cannot control to whom or under what circumstances the applicant will use the letter.

         The Committee also is of the view that a judge who provides a reference for a job, law school, or college applicant, or an applicant for an appointive position, should not recommend that the recipient hire, accept or appoint the applicant (see Opinion 02-26). Rather, the judge should limit his/her comments to his/her personal knowledge of the applicant’s professional performance (see Opinion 94-36 [Vol. XII]); to the judge’s observations of the applicant’s qualities and abilities that are relevant to the position the applicant seeks (see Opinion 02-26); or to the judge's opinion of a person's character based on the judge’s observations; or to the applicant’s work history if the judge has worked with the person or otherwise has reliable personal knowledge of the person’s expertise (see Opinion 93-26 [Vol. XI]).

         Therefore, the inquiring judge may, subject to the limitations set forth in the opinions cited above, may write a letter of recommendation for an attorney who regularly appears in the judge’s court and who is seeking other legal employment.

         With respect to the Victim Impact Statement, the Committee previously has advised that a judge whose chambers were burglarized may, at the District Attorney’s request, write a letter to the parole board - just as crime victims are routinely requested to do - stating the judge’s position about paroling the defendant for the District Attorney’s use during a future parole hearing. However, the Committee noted that the judge may do so only in his/her capacity as a crime victim (see Opinion 07-104). Therefore, the judge in the present inquiry also may comply with the District Attorney’s request that the judge prepare a routine Victim Impact Statement setting forth his/her views as to sentence only. However, he/she may do so only in his/her capacity as a crime victim and should avoid any appearance that he/she is lending the prestige of judicial office to advance his/her private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]; Opinion 07-104).