The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion regarding the conduct of judges in relation to charitable solicitations during court-sponsored internship programs. The opinion, designated as 24-141, addresses concerns raised by an administrative or supervising judge overseeing a summer internship program within the Unified Court System.
The inquiry centered on a recurring guest lecturer who, during presentations to interns, included materials related to a nonprofit foundation. This foundation aims to assist specific defendants in the criminal justice system and featured a donation link on its website. Although the lecturer did not directly solicit donations, the judge sought guidance on addressing this issue in future presentations and whether it was ethically acceptable for the judge or the court to provide a testimonial for the foundation’s marketing purposes.
According to the opinion, judges are required to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, as stated in 22 NYCRR 100.2. They must avoid even the appearance of impropriety and refrain from participating in fundraising activities or using their judicial office to solicit funds. The opinion clarifies that these rules apply not only to individual judges but also to court entities and activities held on court property.
The committee emphasized that the summer internship program qualifies as a court entity, and any fundraising efforts conducted during its sessions could create an impression of impropriety. Therefore, the judge must instruct the guest lecturer to exclude any solicitation materials from future presentations.
Furthermore, the advisory opinion underscores that judges are not obligated to pre-screen guest lecturers’ presentations or materials. However, if a judge becomes aware of any fundraising content, they are compelled to intervene and ensure its removal.
In addition, the committee addressed the issue of providing testimonials for nonprofit organizations. It stated that judges may not offer such endorsements for marketing purposes, as this would constitute an improper use of judicial prestige to support private interests, regardless of the organization’s charitable goals.
The opinion cites several previous rulings to support its conclusions, reinforcing the necessity for judges to uphold the ethical standards outlined in the judiciary’s regulations. As a result, the committee firmly advises against any testimonials being provided to the foundation in question, ensuring adherence to the principles of judicial ethics.
