The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion stating that a full-time judge may participate in a low-stakes online fantasy football league with attorneys who seldom appear in the judge’s court. The attorneys involved are either former colleagues or acquaintances of the judge.
The committee clarified that neither disqualification nor disclosure is required should an attorney acquaintance from the league appear in a proceeding before the judge, provided the judge believes they can remain fair and impartial.
The opinion references several rules and prior opinions to support its conclusion, including Judiciary Law § 14, 22 NYCRR 100.2, 100.2(A)-(B), 100.3(E)(1), 100.4(A)(1)-(3), and Opinions 18-65, 12-151, and 11-125. The case of White v Cuomo, 38 NY3d 209 (2022), was also cited.
The judge seeking the opinion described the fantasy football league as “low-stakes,” with entry fees ranging from $20 to $100. Interaction among league members primarily occurs during an online draft period before the football season begins, where members select players for their fantasy teams. After the season commences, communication among members is minimal, with no in-person events such as draft parties, watch parties, or end-of-season gatherings. Members follow weekly statistical results online.
The Committee emphasized that judges must avoid any appearance of impropriety and promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, as outlined in 22 NYCRR 100.2 and 100.2(A). Extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality, detract from the dignity of the judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, according to 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]. Furthermore, judges must not allow relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment, as stated in 22 NYCRR 100.2[B], and must disqualify themselves in proceedings where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, as per 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1] and Judiciary Law § 14.
The Committee found that participating in a low-stakes fantasy football league with social friends and former colleagues is an ethically permissible extra-judicial activity. They cited the Court of Appeals’ decision in White v Cuomo, which determined that interactive fantasy sports are skill-based games not prohibited by the constitution’s gambling prohibition. The court found that the outcome of fantasy sports contests depends predominantly on the skill of the participants in composing and managing a virtual roster.
The opinion clarifies that the mere fact that an attorney appearing before the judge is a member of the judge’s fantasy sports league does not automatically require disqualification or disclosure, provided the judge can remain fair and impartial. If the relationship is considered an “acquaintance” under Opinion 11-125, disqualification or disclosure is not required if the judge believes they can be fair and impartial, leaving any decisions to disclose the relationship to the judge’s discretion.
