Opinion 25-22

February 6, 2025

Digest:   A full-time judge may register as a consultant with the National Center for State Courts and, if selected, participate in educational programs promoting the rule of law overseas.  The judge may also accept reasonable expense reimbursement and an associated stipend.

Rules:    22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(8); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(B); 100.4(C)(1); 100.4(C)(2)(a); 100.4(C)(3); 100.4(C)(3)(b)(iii); 100.4(H)(1); 100.4(H)(1)(a)-(b); Opinions 22-180; 20-90; 17-54; 09-244; 91-07.

Opinion:

          A full-time judge asks if he/she may register and create a profile as a consultant for the National Center for State Courts, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to “drive innovation and progress in courts and justice systems.”  In particular, the judge would like to participate in educational programs promoting the rule of law overseas as a “judicial reform expert.”  Those selected for the program may be sent to help “transitioning democracies,” often in connection with international institutions and other donor agencies.  Participants typically receive a $500-$650 stipend plus travel, lodging, and meals.  Given the location and subject matter of these programs, the judge believes they are unlikely to come before any court of the Unified Court System.

          A judge must 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]).  Thus, a judge may lecture, teach and participate in extra-judicial activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[B]), if they are compatible with judicial office and do not cast doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge, detract from the dignity of judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).  A judge may participate in efforts to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice (see e.g. 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][1]; 100.4[C][2][a]; 100.4[C][3]; 100.4[C][3][b][iii]).  A full-time judge “may receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses” for permissible extra-judicial activities, “if the source of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge’s performance of judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety” (22 NYCRR 100.4[H][1]).  Compensation must “not exceed a reasonable amount” nor may it exceed what a non-judge would receive for the same activity (22 NYCRR 100.4[H][1][a]).  Expense reimbursement for a full-time judge is “limited to the actual cost of travel, food and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge’s spouse or guest” (22 NYCRR 100.4[H][1][b]); any payment in excess of such an amount is deemed compensation (id.).

          This judge seeks to participate in programs aimed at strengthening the rule of law in developing democracies overseas through judicial reform.  We see no appearance of impropriety in the topic (see e.g. Opinions 17-54; 09-244; 91-07) or the sponsoring organization.  Thus, the inquiring judge may register as a judicial reform expert consultant with the National Center for State Courts and, if selected, may participate in their rule of law programs (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]) and accept reasonable reimbursement for travel, lodging, and meals, as well as the organization’s standard stipend (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[H][1]; Opinion 22-180). 

          The judge’s participation is, of course, subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct.  For example, the judge must not comment on pending or impending proceedings in any court within the United States or its territories (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]).  The judge also “must exercise self-restraint to maintain public confidence in the judge’s ability to perform judicial functions in an appropriate manner consistent with his/her legal and ethical obligations, help minimize the danger of a public perception of entanglement of the judiciary itself in the political process, and avoid any possible appearance that the judge is inserting him/herself unnecessarily into public controversy” (Opinion 20-90 [citations, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted]).