The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing the ethical considerations for judges maintaining and posting on social media accounts. The opinion, designated 25-88, clarifies that judges can engage on social media platforms like Facebook, provided their posts adhere to the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.
The inquiry prompting the opinion involved a full-time judge questioning the appropriateness of posting photos on a personal Facebook page. These photos would depict the judge attending community events and include pictures with military veterans, law enforcement personnel, and members of a political party. The judge specified that the posts would not involve any mention of fundraising activities. The committee presumed that these events are not sponsored by any political organization, as the judge is not currently in an election or re-election window period.
The Committee emphasized several key ethical principles. Judges must avoid any appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. They cannot use their judicial office to advance private interests or participate in fundraising activities. A judge’s duties take precedence, requiring that extra-judicial activities remain compatible with their judicial office. These activities should not cast doubt on their impartiality, detract from the dignity of the office, or interfere with their duties.
While there’s no outright ban on judges using social media, they must exercise discretion and comply with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. Judges should recognize the public nature of their online activity and tailor their posts accordingly. As the committee noted, a judge’s online activities are subject to limitations on judicial speech and conduct. For example, judges cannot offer legal advice or comment publicly on pending court proceedings. They must also be mindful of the appearance created by connecting with attorneys or others appearing in their court through social networks.
The Committee acknowledged that interaction on social media is generally acceptable when judges post about personal hobbies, social events, or non-political topics unrelated to their judicial office. However, judges must exercise caution and prudence in their use of social media to prevent ethical dilemmas. Frequent references to their judicial position on social media could create the impression of using their office to advance private interests.
The advisory opinion offers general guidance, noting that judges may attend social functions of law enforcement organizations, events with veterans, and appear with elected officials at non-political events. Posting images of such events is permissible if it doesn’t suggest impermissible activity by the judge. The committee refrained from commenting on hypothetical images, offering advice in general terms.
