Opinion 24-132
September 12, 2024
Digest: A judge may not be an officer or director of Zonta International, but may be a regular member of the organization.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.0(V); 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.3(A); 100.3(B)(8); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(C)(3)(a)(i)-(ii); 100.5(A)(1); Opinions 24-101; 23-06; 21-179; 21-47; 20-70; 19-30; 15-26/15-44; 14-29; 97-22.
Opinion:
A full-time judge asks if he/she may serve as an officer of Zonta International, a global volunteer not-for-profit organization with a mission to “build a better world for women and girls.” For example, Zonta advocates for gender equality and greater access to education and seeks to end gender-based violence and child marriage. Duties of the position are largely administrative in nature, such as presiding at meetings, planning programs, coordinating and communicating with other leaders, and certain budgetary or oversight responsibilities. The organization is unlikely to engage in adversarial proceedings in any court or to appear before the judge’s court. The judge has already advised Zonta leadership that, as a sitting judge, he/she will not be able to personally engage in legislative or political advocacy, and the organization is willing to allow any such responsibilities to be handled by another individual.[1]
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge’s judicial duties “take precedence over all the judge’s other activities” (22 NYCRR 100.3[A]), and thus a judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). A judge may not serve as an “officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor” of an organization “if it is likely that the organization (i) will be engaged in proceedings that ordinarily would come before the judge, or (ii) if the judge is a full-time judge, will be engaged regularly in adversary proceedings in any court” (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][a][i]-[ii]). A judge must not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance any private interest (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]) and must not publicly comment on any pending or “reasonably foreseeable” court proceeding in the United States or its territories (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]; 100.0[V]). A judge also must not “directly or indirectly engage in any political activity” unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]).
Membership and participation in not-for-profit organizations falls under this rubric and the analysis necessarily involves evaluation of an organization’s activities. We have previously advised that a judge may be a member of a local chapter of Zonta International, a not-for-profit charitable or civic organization with objectives including “improvement of the legal, political, economic, educational and professional status of women” (Opinion 97-22). The leadership role sought by the inquiring judge, however, would more closely associate him/her with organizational positions and requires us to re-examine the organization.
Our starting point is that Zonta’s activities include legislative and political advocacy with respect to domestic violence victims and gender equality. We closely examine domestic violence related activities and agendas (see e.g. Opinion 15-26/15-44). This is so because many judges are called upon to preside over matters involving a domestic violence component, and participating in activities that advocate for victim-related services/positions can affect public/litigant perceptions of the judge. We have also advised that judges should not participate in a not-for-profit organization’s legislative task force or lobbying activities (see Opinions 21-179; 21-47) and may not take leadership roles with entities that publicly advocate positions on controversial issues (see Opinions 24-101 [NAACP]; 23-06 [NRA]; 20-70 [Grange]). We have likewise advised that “a judge may not hold a leadership role in a ‘non-partisan feminist coalition’ which advocates for and influences legislative and social policy affecting women and children but may be a regular member of the organization” (Opinion 14-29).
Our “established framework” allows a judge to evaluate proposed involvement in entities such as Zonta (Opinion 19-30 [citations and quotation marks omitted]):
[I]f a not-for-profit entity engages in some activities clearly permissible for judges as well as some potentially controversial lobbying, advocacy and litigation activities, we have said a judge must not become involved in the organization’s litigations, publicly associate him/herself with organizational positions on matters of public controversy, or assume a leadership role in the organization. In essence, taking a leadership role in such organizations may publicly associate the judge with organizational positions on matters of public controversy, in a way that simple membership does not. Nonetheless, a judge may be a regular member of such organizations, if they are not political organizations under the Rules.
Given Zonta’s specific legislative, political, and social agenda involving domestic violence victims and gender equality, we conclude the inquiring judge should not hold a leadership position in the organization but may be a regular member.
[1] Zonta specifically encourages its members to engage in advocacy, including legislative advocacy on local, state, national, and international levels to “address issues such as child marriage, Title IX and sexual assault on college and university campuses, and the Equal Rights Amendment.”