Opinion 24-87
May 9, 2024
Digest: A full-time judge who is one of the credited writers of a screenplay may permit his/her biography to be included in a screenplay pitch packet which will be circulated to seek funding for the proposed film. The judge’s judicial status may be mentioned in the biography, but must not be used for promotion of the screenplay or any resulting film.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.4(D)(1)(a); 100.4(D)(3); Opinions 23-214; 18-93; 15-182; 14-158; 13-89; 13-76.
Opinion:
The inquiring full-time judge is one of the credited writers of a screenplay. The judge’s co-authors are seeking funding for the proposed film and wish to prepare and circulate a packet of information for this purpose.[1] Accordingly, the inquiring judge asks if it is ethically permissible for the judge’s biography to be included in the circulated packet along with the biographies of the other co-authors.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always 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 lend the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]) or engage in financial and business dealings that “may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position” (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][1][a]). In addition, a full-time judge must not serve as an “active participant of any business entity” (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][3]).
We have advised that a full-time judge who has co-written a screenplay “may not use the judge’s judicial title to solicit agents and movie producers for the screenplay and should also instruct his/her co-authors not to use the judge’s judicial title in promoting the screenplay” (Opinion 23-214).
Here, however, the judge does not propose to use or permit the use of the judge’s title to promote the work, but instead to include the judge’s biography along with those of other co-authors in the packet circulated to potential funders or producers of the proposed film. This is clearly permissible. In Opinion 18-93, where a judge had developed a bar exam study aid software application and wished to provide an “online bio” for the app store, we said it was permissible to post such a biography and briefly mention the judge’s judicial status. As we explained (id.):
A judge “is not prohibited from using his/her judicial title when engaging in extra-judicial activities as long as the judge does not exploit his/her judicial position in the process” (Opinion 13-76). Indeed, a judge who has written a book may identify him/herself as a judge and appear in judicial robes on the cover (see e.g. Opinions 15-182; 13-89). Here, the judge will not mention his/her judicial status in the name or description of the app, but solely in an associated online bio. We believe this is permissible (cf. Opinion 14-158 [part-time judge may include his/her judicial status within the body of his/her online law firm biography or profile, but not in the heading or directory listing]).
We conclude this judge may likewise permit his/her biography to be included in the screenplay pitch packet, along with those of his/her co-authors. The judge’s judicial status may be mentioned in the biography, but must not be used for promotion of the screenplay or any resulting film.
[1] While the contents may vary, it appears that a “screenplay pitch deck” routinely includes “[b]ackground on the creative team behind the screenplay,” such as the writers
(https://screencraft.org/blog/screenplay-pitch-deck/ [visited May 30, 2024]).