Opinion 23-216
February 1, 2024
Digest: An administrative judge may not organize quarterly community volunteer opportunities for the judiciary and non-judicial staff.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(C)(3)(b)(i), (iv); Opinions 23-56; 20-190; 10-137; 03-137; 98-119; 98-35; 94-58.
Opinion:
An administrative judge asks if it is ethically permissible to organize quarterly community volunteer opportunities for the judiciary and non-judicial staff, where participation “will be strictly voluntary and will occur outside of regular court hours.” By way of example, the judge suggests the opportunities could include serving or packing food for the hungry at a not-for-profit entity; volunteering at the Special Olympics; or participating in a Habitat for Humanity build. The judge notes that there would not be any fund-raising involved, as the goal is simply to “connect with our community in yet another meaningful way.”
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 may engage in extra-judicial activities that do not (1) cast doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) detract from the dignity of judicial office; or (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, and are not incompatible with judicial office (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). However, a judge must not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]) and 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]).
“A judge generally may participate in community, civic and charitable endeavors as a volunteer providing services, so long as the activity is not of a partisan political nature” (Opinion 23-56 [citation and quotation omitted]) and does not require the judge to “personally participate in in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][i]). Thus, we see no impropriety in the specific examples of charitable activities described by the inquirer. However, the specific question presented here is not whether these ultimate charitable activities are permissible, but whether an administrative judge may organize and promote such charitable activities to other judges and court personnel. This implicates different ethical principles.
We have advised that a judge may not “solicit volunteers” to perform physical labor for a not-for-profit charitable and civic organization which repairs homes for people in need (Opinion 98-119). We said this degree of involvement “could, in our view, lead to a public perception that the prestige of judicial office is being used to support the endeavors of this particular group” (id.).[1]
In Opinion 94-58, we advised that a judge may not establish a public clothing solicitation drive for the poor and homeless in the name of the court, nor may the judge permit the clerk of the court to do so. We reasoned that “[a]s salutary and as worthy as such activity may be, sponsorship by the judge or by the clerk, in the name of the court, would be lending the prestige of the court to this particular charitable endeavor.” We have reached the same conclusion on other occasions (see e.g. Opinions 03-137 [judge may not adopt a military unit in the name of the court, nor may the judge permit court employees assigned to him/her to do so, where the purpose of such activity is to raise funds for charitable purposes]; 98-35 [judge may not organize a clothing drive for the poor to be conducted at the court to assist public housing residents in developing business skills]).
Likewise, in Opinion 20-190, we considered a “strictly in-chambers initiative organized solely by nonjudicial staff” in which the judge and chambers staff would “adopt” a needy family. We said this was impermissible, as “the judge may not make a charitable contribution in the name of the court and/or chambers, nor permit their employees to do so” (id.). While we recognized that the “judge may contribute their personal funds, either alone or with co-equal judges, to sponsor a family in need, and may be identified by name and title in doing so,” we emphasized this must not be done “in the name of the court,” but only in the judges’ individual names (id.).
[1] However, we note that “a judge who is on the board of a not-for-profit organization may recruit existing members of the organization to participate in a project sponsored by the organization” (Opinion 10-137 [citation omitted]).