The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued Opinion 26-10, clarifying the circumstances under which a judge may participate in the Annual Legislative Conference of the New York State Association of Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic, and Asian Legislators (NYSABPRHAL). The opinion establishes that a judge currently within their designated “window period” for election or re-election may serve as a panelist at the event, provided specific ethical criteria are met.
The inquiry stemmed from a judge who was invited to participate in a mental health awareness forum at the upcoming conference in Albany. The forum, organized by a not-for-profit organization that assists with employment placement, aims to discuss the importance of prioritizing mental health for personal and community well-being. The judge, along with other panelists, was selected based on their leadership and lived experiences.
Historically, the Committee has maintained strict guidelines regarding judicial attendance at the NYSABPRHAL conference. In previous rulings, such as Opinions 24-60 and 20-41, the Committee noted that judges generally should not attend the annual legislative conference, even for ostensibly non-political activities like chaperoning students. However, the Committee distinguished the current case by highlighting the judge’s status as an announced candidate within their window period for election.
The Committee concluded that because the inquiring judge is currently in this window period, they are permitted to attend the conference. This permission is subject to the standard limitations regarding campaign speech and conduct mandated by 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][2]-[4]. By allowing attendance, the Committee emphasized that the community benefits when judges actively engage in community affairs, provided such engagement does not create an appearance of impropriety.
The ruling further clarified that participating in the specific mental health forum is permissible. The Committee noted that it has previously authorized judges to speak on various community-interest topics, including the impact of mental health on the court system, elder abuse prevention, and the dangers of impaired driving. The Committee emphasized that the forum in question is sponsored by a not-for-profit entity and is not a fundraiser, which is a critical distinction, as judges are prohibited from speaking at organizational fundraising events under 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][ii].
The Committee determined that the forum’s subject matter—increasing mental health awareness—is neither unduly controversial nor one-sided. Because the event is primarily educational and unlikely to cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality or interfere with their judicial duties, the Committee found no ethical barrier to participation. However, the Committee reiterated standard warnings that judges must avoid commenting on “pending or impending” proceedings, must not participate in law-enforcement-oriented presentations, and must avoid manifesting any predisposition regarding cases or issues that may come before their court.
