Opinion 25-12

February 6, 2025

Digest:   A Family Court judge may not serve as a troop leader/volunteer for a Girl Scout troop located at a family shelter.

Rules:    22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(C)(3)(b)(ii); Opinions 24-55; 23-56; 20-55; 20-03; 19-151; 10-137; 98-39.

Opinion:

          A Family Court judge asks if he/she may serve as a troop leader/volunteer for a Girl Scout troop located at a family shelter in another county.  Troop members are largely current or former shelter residents.  The girls and their families may be referred to the shelter by Family Courts in multiple counties, including the one where the judge presides.  The judge notes that the troop leader role consists of leading meetings and facilitating activities which are intended to help troop members “make new friends, earn badges, and learn to see themselves as leaders.”

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote 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 his/her extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and not “cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge,” detract from judicial dignity, or “interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties” (22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).  We also note that a full-time judge may not serve as a non-legal advisor of an organization which is “likely” to “be engaged regularly in adversary proceedings in any court” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][ii]).

          We recognize that there is “nothing inherently improper in a judge volunteering with scouting organizations or mentoring youth” (Opinion 24-55).  Nonetheless, “we must also look at the overall context” to determine whether the judge’s participation may create an appearance of impropriety and cast doubt on the judge’s ability to be fair and impartial (id.; compare e.g. Opinions 23-56 [employment nominating committee]; 19-151 [scoutmaster and volunteer enterprise risk management chair]; 98-39 [mere attendee at fund-raising dinner] with Opinions 24-55 [Exploring Post “administered and mentored by the local sheriff’s office”]; 20-03 [regional council “likely to be engaged regularly in adversarial proceedings”]; 10-137 [position “responsible for increasing the membership”]).

          Here, although the judge presides in Family Court in a different county than the shelter that hosts the troop, we are nonetheless mindful that the Family Courts in various counties make referrals to the family shelter.  Whether or not their cases are before the inquiring judge, most of the troop members and their families are, and will be, involved in ongoing Family Court proceedings for extended periods.  In our view, this fact could at the very least create an appearance of impropriety that may cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality.

          Accordingly, the inquiring Family Court judge may not serve as a troop leader/volunteer for a Girl Scout troop located at a family shelter.