The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion regarding the ethical conduct of judges participating in charitable activities. The opinion, numbered 24-85, addresses the inquiry of a full-time judge who sought guidance on whether it would be permissible to engage in a charitable visit to a family shelter. This event was organized by court officers in their individual capacities during their personal time.
The judge planned to speak to the shelter’s staff and residents about personal experiences, including their upbringing and challenges faced as a child abuse survivor and witness to domestic violence. Additionally, the judge and court officers intended to distribute toiletries to the shelter’s residents.
According to the committee, judges must avoid any appearance of impropriety and promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity. They must ensure that their extra-judicial activities do not compromise their ability to act impartially, detract from the dignity of the judicial office, or interfere with their judicial responsibilities. Furthermore, judges are prohibited from soliciting funds or using their judicial prestige to advance private interests.
The committee acknowledged that while judges should refrain from participating in community efforts that could conflict with their judicial duties, they also recognized the value of judges being active in community affairs. In this case, as the event was not a fundraising effort, the committee concluded that the judge could attend and serve as a speaker, provided they adhered to applicable restrictions on judicial conduct and speech.
The opinion clarifies that judges must avoid discussing court-related issues or pending cases during such interactions, even in a charitable context. The proposed discussion by the judge about their own life experiences and professional journey was deemed permissible under existing guidelines.
Moreover, while judges cannot solicit donations, they are allowed to make personal charitable contributions and assist in distributing items collected by others. The committee concluded that the judge’s involvement in distributing toiletries at the shelter, as long as it was not linked to fundraising, would be ethically acceptable.
This advisory opinion emphasizes the balance judges must maintain between their professional responsibilities and community involvement while adhering to the ethical standards governing judicial conduct.
