Opinion 25-06(A)

February 6, 2025

Digest:   A judge may send a letter to a law school admissions office to provide additional support for an applicant who has been waitlisted, if the letter reflects the judge’s personal knowledge and observations of the applicant.  Although such contact should be made in writing rather than by telephone, the judge may nonetheless invite the admissions office to call the judge for further discussion. 

Rules:    22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.3(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); Opinions 24-109; 10-07; 88-10.

Opinion:

          A full-time judge asks if he/she may make a telephone call to a law school admissions office on behalf of an applicant who has been waitlisted, to lend support to the application.  The judge notes that the law school is the judge’s alma mater, and he/she was previously a member of the law school’s alumni committee.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge’s judicial duties “take precedence over all the judge’s other activities” (22 NYCRR 100.3[A]) and thus his/her extra-judicial activities are subject to limitations (see generally 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).  In addition, a judge must not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).

          In general, a judge with relevant personal knowledge of a job applicant or of an individual seeking admission to an educational institution may write a reference letter to the prospective employer or the institution at the applicant’s request (see e.g. Opinions 24-109; 88-10).  Such letters ordinarily focus on the judge’s “personal knowledge of the applicant’s professional performance[;] observations of the applicant’s qualities and abilities that are relevant to the position[; or] the judge’s opinion of a person’s character based on the judge’s observations” (Opinion 10-07).  They may also address “the applicant’s work history if the judge has worked with the person or otherwise has reliable personal knowledge of the person’s expertise” (id.).  If the judge uses judicial stationery, he/she must clearly mark it “Personal and Unofficial” (see Opinion 24-109).

          Thus, the inquiring judge may write a letter in support of a law school applicant, provided the judge knows the applicant and the letter speaks to that personal knowledge and the judge’s observations of the qualities and abilities of the prospective student.  The letter need not be solicited by the law school, but may be sent by the judge either sua sponte or at the request of the applicant, even after the applicant has been waitlisted.

          The present inquiry raises one novel issue, as the inquiring judge specifically asks about placing a telephone call to the law school admissions office to lend support to a waitlisted applicant.  To avoid even the possible appearance of undue pressure, we advise that any recommendation be in writing pursuant to the guidance above.  The judge’s letter may, however, invite the admissions office to call the judge for further discussion, thus leaving it to the admission office’s discretion as to whether it wishes to speak directly with the judge concerning the applicant.