Opinion 24-141
September 12, 2024
Digest: (1) An administrative/supervising judge who learns that a recurring guest lecturer at a court-sponsored internship program included a donation link and solicitation page for a charitable foundation in their presentation to the interns must direct the lecturer to omit these materials from any future presentations at the court’s internship program.
(2) The judge and the court system may not provide a testimonial to be posted on the website of a charitable foundation.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.4(C)(3)(b)(i), (iv); Opinions 22-19; 21-31; 20-158; 06-117; 05-56.
Opinion:
The inquiring administrative or supervising judge has general oversight over a court-sponsored summer internship program and its lecture series. The judge recently learned that a recurring guest lecturer who speaks about his/her personal experience with the criminal justice system includes in the presentation information about a not-for-profit foundation created to assist a certain category of defendants and a link for donations. We understand that the lecturer did not overtly and directly solicit donations from the summer interns, but only displayed a page from the foundation’s website which provided a link and information about how to donate. The judge requests guidance about “how to direct [the lecturer] going forward” at future summer internship programs. Further, the judge asks if it is ethically permissible to accede to the lecturer’s request for the judge and/or the court system to “provide a testimonial to be posted on [the] foundation’s website.”
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 must not “personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][i]), must not “use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or membership solicitation” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][iv]), and must not otherwise lend judicial prestige to advance any private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).
1. Guest Lecturer
We have advised that “the rules prohibiting fund-raising apply not only to judges, but also to courts and court entities, and to fund-raising on court property” (Opinion 06-117). For present purposes, a summer internship program sponsored by the Unified Court System qualifies as a court entity.
As described in the inquiry, this judge has become aware of specific conduct by a particular guest lecturer on court premises during a court-sponsored internship program that could, at the very least, create an impression that the court’s invited lecturer sought to solicit funds from the interns. Accordingly, on these facts, the inquiring judge must direct the lecturer to omit the donation link and/or solicitation page from any future presentations at the court’s internship program.
We emphasize that the judge has no obligation to review guest lecturers’ presentations or materials in advance or to monitor their presentations (cf. Opinion 20-158 [advising court need not monitor lawyer websites]). However, if the judge becomes aware that a lecturer at the court’s internship program is including or has included a fund-raising element in their presentation, the judge must direct them to desist.
2. Testimonial
We have advised that a judge may not provide a testimonial for use in a not-for-profit organization’s marketing materials, including their website, handbook, or social media page (see e.g. Opinions 22-19; 21-31). Providing a testimonial from the court system or the judge to burnish the foundation’s image and enhance its financial position constitutes an impermissible use of the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the organization, however worthy its purposes may be (see Opinion 05-56).
Thus, we conclude that no testimonial should be provided.