The Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics responds to written inquiries from approximately 3,600 New York State judges and judges, as well as hundreds of judicial hearing officers, support judges, barristers, and judicial candidates (both judges and non-judges seeking election to the position of Chief Justice ). judicial function). The Commission shall interpret the rules governing judicial conduct (22 NYCRR Part 100) and, to the extent applicable, the Code of Judicial Conduct. The committee consists of 28 current and retired judges, and is co-chaired by Her Excellency Debra L. Givens, Acting Judge of the Superior Court of Erie County, and the Honorable Lillian Wan, Associate Judge of the Appellate Division, Second Department.
digest: A group of judges may make charitable donations to local hospitals and are publicly recognized for doing so. Judges do not need to disclose donations nor recuse themselves if hospitals appear before them.
opinion: Several judges decided to make a joint charitable donation to some local hospitals in their own names using their personal funds to purchase medical supplies. Judges will personally hand out supplies and ask if they can participate in tours of hospital clinics that will use the supplies; Allow hospitals to hold events to publicly acknowledge donations; I took pictures with supplies and hospital staff; and provide photographs or press releases to the media regarding donations. They also ask about potential disclosure or exclusion obligations as a result of these activities.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (See 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (See 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). Thus, a judge’s judicial duties “take precedence” over all other judge activities (22 NYCRR 100.3)[A]). Judges may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with their judicial office and do not raise any reasonable doubt about their ability to act impartially, detract from the dignity of judicial office, or otherwise interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties (See 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). Judges may not personally participate in soliciting funds or raising funds (See 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][i]The prestige of judicial office must not be used or allowed to be used to raise funds or solicit membership.See 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][iv]).
Justices may make charitable donations in their own names, either alone or with a co-justice, and may be identified by name and title while doing so (See for example Fatwas 20-190; 13-18; 04-140). Therefore, they may allow the charitable organization to use the judge’s name and title to publicly acknowledge the donation (See Fatwas 20-132 [listed with other donors on memorial plaque for statue honoring a federal judge]; 13-18 [sign displayed during fund-raising golf outing](and/or identify themselves as judges)See Opinion 18-05 [advertisement in church’s weekly bulletin]).
Accordingly, inquiring judges may allow hospitals to publicly acknowledge their donations, and may participate in hospital-organized thank-you events such as hospital tours, meeting and photo opportunities with employees, or the like. Judges may also provide a press release and accompanying photographs to the media regarding donations and/or respond to media inquiries regarding them. To the extent that judges wish to take photographs in the courtroom, any photography or video recording within the courtroom is subject to administrative approvals (See 22 NYCRR 29.1) and must not conflict with judicial duties (See 22 NYCRR 100.3[A]; 100.4[A][3]).
Likewise, we see no wrongdoing in expressing appreciation for the work of a charity in relation to a charitable donation (See. Opinion 99-54 [expressing appreciation for care provided to judge’s parent]). Naturally, judges must be careful not to confer prestige on judicial office through endorsements, reviews, or testimonials that could be used for advertising, marketing, or publicity (See 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]; Views 23-121; 22-19; 20-108; 15-103; 05-56).
However, we caution judges against exercising discretion regarding intended publicity. As we mentioned in Fatwa 24-46:
Under the rules, “a judge must act with great restraint” to maintain public confidence in the judiciary (Opinion 23-129). In this regard, we draw a line between acts of self-promotion during the election campaign and similar acts outside the judge’s window period (See identity. [where judge’s collection of social media videos “will readily be perceived as a campaign of self-promotion,” they must be removed at the end of the window period]).
In Opinion 24-46, we said that a judge “should not pay for media ads promoting the judge’s upcoming speeches,” as they “could easily be viewed as a form of self-promotion convenient for a judicial campaign.”
Finally, the judges are asked about their ethical obligations if hospitals appear before them. “Ordinarily, a judge need not reverse or disclose after a charitable donation has been made, because most contributions are relatively modest and not essential to the operation of the charity” (Opinion 23-52 [internal quotation marks omitted]). In our opinion, the judge’s impartiality cannot be “reasonably called into question” (22 NYCRR 100.3).[E][1]) in hospital-related matters, simply because the judge has publicly donated medical supplies to the hospital as described herein. Accordingly, judges do not need to disclose donations nor recuse themselves if hospitals appear before them.
