The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing whether a full-time judge may serve on the board of directors of a not-for-profit cemetery and receive standard compensation.
The committee found no ethical bar to such service, even if one of the cemeteries is within the court’s jurisdiction, provided the cemeteries are not regularly engaged in adversarial litigation. Opinion 25-150 clarifies the application of judicial ethics rules to this specific scenario.
The inquiry stemmed from a judge who sought to continue serving on the boards of two not-for-profit cemetery organizations after assuming full-time judicial office. One cemetery is located outside the court’s jurisdiction and rarely involved in litigation. The other is within the court’s jurisdiction but has only occasionally been named in personal injury or disinterment proceedings as a stakeholder.
The Committee referenced several rules and prior opinions in its analysis, including provisions of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct that address conflicts of interest and extra-judicial activities. A judge must avoid impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary. While judges can generally serve as officers, directors, or trustees of not-for-profit organizations, this is prohibited if the entity is likely to be engaged in proceedings that would come before the judge or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.
The opinion notes that a judge must disqualify themselves from cases where they are an officer, director, or trustee of a party, or if they have an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding. The Committee concluded that neither cemetery was “engaged regularly” in adversarial proceedings. It also determined that the local cemetery was not “likely” to be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge.
Regarding compensation, the Committee determined that the judge could accept the same standard compensation as other board members. This is permissible as long as the compensation does not exceed what a non-judge would receive for the same activity and does not create an appearance of improper influence. The Committee noted that because a judge serving as a director of a cemetery would be disqualified in any matters involving the cemetery, the source of payments would not create such an appearance.
