Check your answers below and scroll all the way down for your score.
1. Select One: May a judge or quasi-judicial official accept an offer to stay for free at the vacation home of an attorney who regularly appears in his/her court?
(a) Yes, this is ordinary social hospitality.
(b) Maybe, it depends on whether the accommodation is unusually lavish or luxurious.
(c) No.
Answer: (c) No. In construing the “ordinary social hospitality” exception, the Advisory Committee has emphasized the word “ordinary” and have focused on discrete social functions such as a party or dinner. The use and value of a weekend stay in an attorney’s vacation home exceeds the bounds of "ordinary social hospitality," and no other exception applies on these facts. See Opinion 24-103.
Additional note: The Committee flagged potential disclosure/disqualification issues, emphasizing that "both the current offer and any prior stays should be considered in determining the level of relationship and concomitant obligations under 11-125."
2. Select One: A judge's long-time friend is applying for a pistol permit. Assuming the judge is not a firearm licensing officer, which of the following statements is most accurate:
(a) The judge may permit the applicant to provide the judge's name to firearm licensing officer. Should that licensing officer contact the judge, the judge may answer his/her questions based on personal knowledge.
(b) The judge may write a letter in support of the applicant based on personal knowledge, if asked by the applicant's attorney.
(c) Both (a) and (b).
(d) None of the above.
Answer: (a). In general, a judge with relevant personal knowledge may write a letter supporting a person seeking employment or seeking admission to an educational institution, but may not write a letter supporting an individual who has an application or proceeding pending before a government agency. In the latter situation, providing the letter at the request of the applicant (or their counsel) would impermissibly lend judicial prestige to advance private interests. However, we have often said it is permissible for a judge’s name to be listed as a reference in circumstances where the judge cannot write a letter, and thereafter the judge may respond to any official inquiry, if one is made, based on the judge’s personal knowledge of the applicant. The one special wrinkle here, in the context of a pistol permit application, is that some judges – albeit not the inquirer – are themselves firearm licensing officers. In our view, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, a judge who is a firearm licensing officer should not agree to be listed as a reference on a pistol permit application. See Opinion 20-98.
3. Yes/No: May a judge accept a youth leadership position with an Exploring Post that is to be administered and mentored by the local sheriff's office?
Answer: No. We see nothing inherently improper in a judge volunteering with scouting organizations or mentoring youth. However, a judge must not participate in otherwise laudable community activities that could readily be perceived as a law enforcement program and thus compromise the judge’s appearance of impartiality. This particular Exploring Post will be administered by the sheriff’s office, which will also provide mentorship and career training. Under these circumstances, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid a public perception that the program is sponsored by law enforcement and is intended to promote law enforcement careers. The judge’s proposed participation as an adult leader in the program could cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality and/or create an appearance that the judge is aligned in interest with law enforcement. Accordingly, the judge may not accept a position as a leader with this particular Exploring Post. See Opinion 24-55.
4. True/False: A judge may make non-political charitable contributions and/or be a regular member of the National Rifle Association or Planned Parenthood, but may not donate to their political arms or assume any leadership position with them.
Answer: True. See Opinion 23-217 and Opinion 23-06.
5. Yes/No: May a judge continue to preside over a criminal matter after the defendant files a federal lawsuit against him/her, the arresting police officer, and others? May the judge preside over other matters in which the police officer appears?
Answer: Yes, provided the judge can be fair and impartial. As we noted, a rule requiring "automatic recusal … could enable unsuccessful or disgruntled litigants to engage in judge shopping." See Opinion 20-61.
6. Yes/No: May a sitting judge who is not in their window period pay $25 to a federal political campaign?
Answer: No. See e.g. Opinion 23-204. As the Commission on Judicial Conduct has observed, "the prohibition on partisan politics is not limited to state or local offices in New York but applies to all campaigns, anywhere" (CJC 2024 Ann Rep at 29).
Additional Comment: Even during one's window period for election or re-election to judicial office, it is not permissible to make flat-out "contributions" to a party or another candidate. Rather, permissible expenditures involve purchasing admission to a political event (subject to the limitations on price and number of tickets) or purchasing campaign advertisements (subject to the fair value rule).
7. Select One: You have been invited to attend the wedding of an attorney who regularly appears before you as a wedding guest (not as officiant). You consider the attorney an acquaintance under 11-125. If you go, what are your obligations afterward when the attorney appears before you on behalf of a client:
(a) You are disqualified, subject to remittal, for two years.
(b) You must make full disclosure for two years, but may preside if you can be fair and impartial.
(c) You need not disclose or recuse, because the attorney is merely an acquaintance.
(d) None of the above because you must decline the invitation.
Answer: (b) Full disclosure is required for two years after the wedding, but after making such disclosure, the judge may preside if he/she can be fair and impartial. We have long recognized that attendance solely as a social guest clearly suggests a social relationship between the judge and the attorney, and therefore warrants disclosure, but did not set a specific length of time until Opinion 22-138. As we explained, "[a] set period will be simpler for judges to remember and apply, and two years is a standard we have used regularly since the Committee's inception."
By contrast, it should be noted that officiating at an attorney's wedding does not necessarily suggest a social relationship in the same manner. See Opinion 23-55.
8. Yes/No: May a judge with relevant personal knowledge provide an affirmation of good moral character on behalf of a first-time applicant for admission to the bar?
Answer: Yes. This is a long-established exception. See Opinion 23-152.
9. Yes/No: May a judge whose child attends a local public school serve on, or stand for election to, a local school board?
Answer: No. This is a long-standing prohibition reflecting both the "resign-to-run" rule and concerns about unnecessary involvement in matters of substantial local controversy. See Opinion 23-159; 22 NYCRR 100.5(B). However, we noted that a judge "may attend and participate in school board meetings in his/her capacity as the parent of a current student." Should the judge choose to do so, however, we emphasized that "the judge must not invoke the judge’s judicial status and any advocacy by the judge should be limited to the judge’s child’s interests."
10. Yes/No: After a judge’s adult child has been convicted and sentenced, may the judge attend and participate in the child’s subsequent parole hearing?
Answer: Yes, provided they do so in the obvious role of a parent and without reference to their judicial status or otherwise invoking the prestige of judicial office. We carved out this "narrow exception" in recognition that "the presence or absence of family support for the potential releasee or parolee is a significant component of a release decision. To forbid a judge who is a parent from voluntarily participating in a parole hearing for their own child seems unnecessarily and unfairly punitive to that child." See Opinion 20-31.
Score
0-6: It's time to update your knowledge of judicial ethics. Click "Education Programs" for information about upcoming programs.
7-8: Well done. Just be sure to stay on top of the latest developments by reading the Committee's opinions as they are made available.
9-10: Keep up the great work. And don't forget to contact the Advisory Committee if you have specific questions about your own prospective conduct as a judge or quasi-judicial official.
How to keep up with the latest Advisory Committee opinions
Most new opinions are distributed to sitting judges by broadcast email and are also sent to the Buffalo Law Journal, the New York Daily Record, the New York Law Journal and/or The Magistrate. Once they are broadcast, new opinions are also listed on the "Recently Broadcast Opinions" page. In addition, all published opinions are made available on our website, and may be searched electronically by selecting "Search Opinions" from the left-hand menu.