The main list reflects judicial campaign ethics opinions that have been published in the past 12 to 18 months. A supplemental list provides some additional opinions issued since March 2015.
For ease of reference, certain multi-topic "omnibus" opinions are also listed together at the end of the page.
The Judicial Campaign Ethics Handbook provides an overview of additional pertinent rules and opinions. In addition, you may search or browse all published Advisory Committee opinions online (1987-present).
Recently Issued Opinions
Opinion 20-111 (released 9/10/20)
DIGEST: Judicial candidates may attend virtual political fund-raising events during their window period, subject to the usual limitations on price and number of tickets, provided they attend and appear on screen along with other attendees.
Opinion 20-83 (released 6/18/20)
DIGEST: A Supreme Court candidate may write a letter asking voters to vote in a primary election for a judicial delegate who will support his/her nomination but must make clear that his/her endorsement of the delegate is for the purpose of furthering his/her own candidacy for Supreme Court. This information should be contained in the body of the letter; a notation at the very bottom of the page, in a much smaller font than the rest of the letter, is insufficient.
Opinion 19-119 (released 10/24/19)
DIGEST: Where a political action committee’s endorsement is conditioned on the candidate’s pledge, promise or commitment (a) not to seek or accept a specified political party’s nomination and (b) to disregard the law by “unequivocally support[ing]” access to certain regulated medical procedures or devices “unimpeded by laws, restrictions, or regulations,” a judicial candidate must decline the entity’s endorsement. On these facts, the candidate also must not attend the entity’s fund-raiser featuring its endorsed candidates.
Opinion 19-112 (released 10/24/19)
DIGEST: Judicial candidates must take particular care to ascertain the truth of all claims they make about their election opponents and make every effort to avoid misleading the public with mere speculation or innuendo. Thus, a candidate may not (1) unjustly characterize an election opponent’s prior removal from the ballot as an inability to “follow the law” and/or a “flagrant disregard for the law” or (2) present hypothetical scenarios incorrectly suggesting unfavorable litigation outcomes that can only result from a judge’s failure to “follow the law” or other judicial misconduct.
Opinion 19-109 (released 10/24/19)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may pay his/her proportionate share of the actual expenses for a “petition signing party,” at which modest and reasonable refreshments are served, for the purpose of assembling registered voters to sign petitions, provided he/she concludes the campaign will receive fair value for the expenditure. However, the candidate must only circulate or request signatures on petitions as permitted by prior opinions.
Opinion 19-94A (released 10/24/19)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may allow an individual to host a joint fund-raiser for him/her and two other judicial candidates, but the attendees must write separate checks to each candidate’s campaign committee.
Opinion 19-94(B) (12/12/19)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may not permit a political action committee to host a joint fund-raiser for him/her and another candidate.
Opinion 19-53
DIGEST: A judicial candidate must not use a photograph of strangers that falsely implies the individuals depicted endorse the candidate.
Opinion 19-37 (released 3/14/19)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate’s campaign committee may use an electronic event invitation system that charges 2% of the ticket price per ticket sold to distribute fund-raising invitations and sell tickets.
Opinion 19-22 (released 3/14/19)
DIGEST: After Election Day, a judge may appoint an attorney who merely hosted a single campaign fund-raiser for the judge to a Part 36 position for which the attorney is qualified, provided the appointment is made impartially and on the basis of merit.
Opinion 19-19 (released 3/14/19)
DIGEST: If a judicial candidate determines he/she is legally permitted to repay his/her personal loan after the election, it is ethically permissible for him/her to use his/her remaining unexpended campaign funds, raised before election day, to do so.
Opinion 19-37 (released 3/14/19)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate’s campaign committee may use an electronic event invitation system that charges 2% of the ticket price per ticket sold to distribute fund-raising invitations and sell tickets.
Opinion 19-19 (released 3/14/19)
DIGEST: If a judicial candidate determines he/she is legally permitted to repay his/her personal loan after the election, it is ethically permissible for him/her to use his/her remaining unexpended campaign funds, raised before election day, to do so.
Additional Selected Opinions Issued Since 2007
Please note: Multi-topic "omnibus" opinions are listed separately for ease of reference.
Opinion 18-167 (released 12/11/18)
DIGEST: A judge who is a judicial candidate within his/her window period may pay his/her proportionate share of the actual expenses for a free “meet and greet” with four candidates for non-judicial office, where two of these candidates are invited as guests and will not share in the expenses, provided he/she concludes the campaign will receive fair value for the expenditure.
Opinion 18-164 (released 12/11/18)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate who is part of a political party’s slate may attend a fund-raising event where the invitation says “come meet [this year’s] candidates, including our judicial slate,” without naming him/her.
Joint Opinion 18-121/18-122/18-123 (released 9/6/18)
DIGEST: (1) During the applicable window period, a judicial candidate generally may purchase campaign advertisements at a picnic organized by a labor union or a political party, subject to the fair value rule, even if the advertisements are labeled as “sponsorships.” (2) Where purchase of any level of sponsorship at the picnic will result in the identical advertisement (a mere listing of the candidate’s name in a brochure), the candidate may only purchase the least expensive level of sponsorship. (3) Where the picnic is sponsored by a political organization and the advertising opportunities are bundled together with tickets to the event, the judicial candidate must also comply with the limitations on price and number of tickets. (4) Where different levels of sponsorships reflect distinctly different levels of advertising visibility at the picnic, the candidate may purchase a mid-range sponsorship package resulting in mid-level visibility and one-time recognition by the master of ceremonies, provided the candidate decides his/her campaign will get fair value for the expense.
Opinion 18-117 (released 9/6/18)
DIGEST: (1) Once a judicial candidate’s total remaining unexpended campaign funds are deemed de minimis, the candidate may (a) use these funds to purchase two judicial robes and/or (b) donate the balance to a not-for-profit entity that operates a childcare program at the courthouse for children of litigants in that court, with instructions that the funds be used for that purpose. (2) Judicial candidates who, after the conclusion of their window period, wish to donate their de minimis unexpended campaign funds to an entity other than those specifically referenced in one of our published opinions should write to the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics for guidance.
Opinion 18-116 (released 9/6/18)
DIGEST: Where a judicial candidate loaned his/her personal funds to the campaign, and that loan is now legally deemed a contribution, the candidate may include his/her contribution in the calculations when returning unexpended campaign funds pro rata to the candidate and to all campaign contributors after the window period ends. Thus, if the candidate’s personal loan was the campaign’s sole funding source, he/she may return all the funds entirely to him/herself as the sole contributor.
Opinion 18-109 (released 6/21/18)
DIGEST: (1) A full-time judge need not report on his/her annual statement of financial disclosure his/her theoretical involvement with a company the judge believed was completely dissolved and/or abandoned before he/she assumed judicial office, even though it is still listed as “active” on the NYS Department of Corporations website, where (a) the judge has never received any compensation or seen any evidence of business or other activity by the company, (b) the founder assured the judge that the company was never funded, never engaged in any business activity, was abandoned years ago and was thought to be dissolved, and (c) the founder has agreed that the judge should be deemed to have resigned from any theoretical involvement with the company several years ago nunc pro tunc. (2) On these facts, the judge should ask the company’s founder in writing to formally dissolve the apparently abandoned company; once the judge has made this request, the judge has no further ethical obligation.
Opinion 18-105 (released 6/21/18)
DIGEST: A Supreme Court candidate seeking a political party’s nomination may circulate a petition for the party’s slate of “uncommitted” judicial delegates, where none of the delegates on the petition is publicly committed to support any Supreme Court candidate but must make clear that his/her endorsement of such delegates is for the purpose of furthering his/her own candidacy.
Opinion 18-102 (released 6/21/18)
DIGEST: Assuming he/she can be fair and impartial, a newly elected judge may preside in cases of a lawyer who (a) formerly served on the executive committee of the judge’s local political party providing social media and website help to the party’s entire slate of candidates and (b) is an acquaintance who does not socialize privately with the judge but only interacts with him/her as parents of very young children during play dates and birthday parties. On these facts, neither disclosure nor disqualification is required.
Opinion 18-96 (released 6/21/18)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate must not use campaign contributions to purchase new clothes for his/her election campaign.
Opinion 18-95 (released 5/10/18)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may not answer a political party’s questionnaire designed to elicit express and implied commitments that (a) are unrelated to the impartial performance of judicial duties and/or (b) would require him/her to engage in activities prohibited by the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.
Opinion 18-70 (released 5/10/18)
DIGEST: Subject to the fair value rule, a candidate for elective judicial office may use campaign funds to attend a charitable event during the post-election window period and purchase a full-page congratulatory journal advertisement in furtherance of his/her campaign. That the candidate is a trustee of the organization does not render this expenditure impermissible.
Opinion 18-69 (released 5/10/18)
DIGEST: Subject to compliance with all applicable rules and statutes, a judicial candidate may permit a member of his/her campaign committee to manage a private GoFundMe account to raise contributions for the campaign, provided (1) the candidate is insulated from knowing who contributed and (2) such contributions are properly reported by the campaign treasurer.
Opinion 18-63 (released 5/10/18)
DIGEST: Where a judge has completed all post-election requirements to wind down and terminate his/her campaign, he/she may subsequently return to the sender an unopened envelope addressed to the judge’s now defunct campaign committee. The judge may include a letter on campaign letterhead or personal letterhead and signed personally by the judge.
Opinion 18-35 (released 4/29/18)
DIGEST: (1) A judicial candidate may not permit another person to purchase a $2,000 ticket to a political event and donate it to his/her campaign but may permit his/her campaign committee to request admission for $250 even though others must pay $2,000. (2) A judge’s obligation to disqualify him/herself from matters involving an attorney who has offered to host a single fund-raiser for the judge does not commence until invitations to the fund-raiser have been sent out. Once the invitations have been sent, the judge is disqualified, subject to remittal, from all matters involving the attorney and his/her partners and associates, during the election campaign. This obligation ends on Election Day.
Opinion 16-150 (released 3/3/17)
Two judicial candidates may send a joint mailing to voters who request an absentee ballot, provided they avoid any implication of a cross-endorsement. (Note: the proposed mailer would “divide one side of the post card in half,” and each candidate would separately “give a brief summary of [his/her own] credentials and ask the recipient to cast one of their votes in [his/her own] favor.”)
Amended Opinion 16-97 (released 10/25/16)
After one bona fide effort to return unexpended funds pro rata to all contributors, a judicial candidate need not make any further efforts to return the funds, even if some envelopes were returned to the campaign committee as undeliverable. Instead, the remaining campaign funds may be used for any purpose consistent with prior opinions and applicable law.
Opinion 16-79 (9/8/16)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may not personally distribute campaign materials that, on their face, invite the public to “donate” to his/her campaign, but may permit his/her campaign committee to do so.
Opinion 16-75 (9/2/16)
DIGEST: Two judicial candidates, hosting a joint fund-raiser, may permit their campaign committees to accommodate an attendee who supports only one candidate and therefore refuses to pay 50% of the ticket price to each campaign committee, by allowing him/her to pay the full price to one campaign committee. If they choose to so proceed, the candidates must instruct their campaign committees to shield the candidates from the accommodation’s details, including the donor’s identity.
Opinion 15-196 (8/24/16)
DIGEST: (1) A law clerk who conferences cases on behalf of a judge may, in his/her capacity as a judicial candidate, film a campaign commercial depicting a simulated conference, provided it is not misleading and there is no connotation of a judicial context. (2) Whether disclosure or disqualification obligations arise out of the relationship between a subsequently elected judge and an attorney who appeared in that judge’s campaign commercial depends also on any other facts that describe the nature of their relationship.
Opinion 16-47 (8/22/16)
DIGEST: A non-judge who is a judicial candidate in his/her window period may not serve on a local bar association’s screening panel evaluating applicants for appointment to state or federal judicial office.
Opinion 16-07 (7/28/16)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may not sign a political organization’s pledge that requires the candidate to support and endorse all other candidates endorsed by the organization and to consult with it on any appointments when in public office.
Opinion 14-167 (released 2/24/16)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate, who has received a political organization’s statement of costs incurred on behalf of his/her campaign, has no affirmative duty to investigate the accuracy of the statement. However, where the statement is plainly an unreliable, advance estimate of the actual costs ultimately incurred on the candidate’s behalf, or is otherwise clearly inaccurate on its face, the candidate must request a revised statement of actual costs incurred by the organization.
Opinion 15-71 (released 9/17/15)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may, subject to certain limitations, participate in a pro-choice or pro-life advocacy organization’s interview process, answer questions during the interview, and, if offered, accept the organization’s endorsement.
Opinion 15-121 (released 8/6/15)
DIGEST: Subject to certain limitations, a judicial candidate may permit his/her campaign committee to establish Facebook connections with the campaign committees of other candidates on the same slate.
Opinion 15-01 (released 6/22/15)
DIGEST: A non-judge who is seeking election or appointment to judicial office may remain employed as a police officer until he/she takes and files his/her oath of office as a judge.
Opinion 15-04 (released 5/29/15)
DIGEST: An incumbent judge’s public announcement that he/she will retire from the bench on a specific date, when coupled with an additional significant and reliable affirmative step to effectuate his/her retirement, is sufficient to create a known judicial vacancy for the purpose of determining when the window period opens and individuals may publicly announce their interest in seeking election to the position.
Opinion 14-146 (released 5/28/15)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may not permit his/her campaign committee to solicit or accept items for donation to a local charity.
Multi-Topic Omnibus Opinions (2012 - present)
Opinion 16-29/16-50 (released 9/14/16)
DIGEST: (1) A candidate whose remaining unexpended campaign funds total $2,500 or less at the end of the window period may immediately treat those funds as de minimis without first attempting to return the funds pro rata to contributors. (2) A candidate whose remaining unexpended campaign funds exceed $2,500 must make one reasonable, bona fide attempt to return all the funds pro rata to contributors. Any funds remaining following this effort may be treated as de minimis. (3) De minimis campaign funds, as defined above, may be used after conclusion of the window period as follows, to the extent legally permitted: (a) they may be expended for any lawful non-political purpose connected to judicial office, such as the purchase of judicial robes, office supplies, computer software or books; or (b) they may be donated to the Catalyst Public Service Fellowship Program; or (c) subject to any necessary administrative approvals, they may be used to purchase books or other reference materials to be donated to the courthouse law libraries. (4) The Committee declines to address whether unexpended campaign funds may be donated to the Unified Court System, absent resolution of the legal and administrative policy issues involved.
Joint Opinion 13-137/13-152/13-153 (released 5/30/14)
DIGEST: (1) A judicial candidate’s participation in a joint advertisement, prepared on behalf of a slate of judicial and non-judicial candidates, is not rendered impermissible merely because the advertisement characterizes the slate as a “team” and urges voters to vote for particular row(s) on the ballot on which the slate appears. (2) Use of disclaimer language indicating that the judicial candidate is not publicly endorsing other candidates is not mandatory for any judicial candidate.
Joint Opinion 14-92/14-94 (released 10/17/14)
DIGEST: For purposes of calculating the start of the applicable Window Period, a candidate for elective judicial office may count back nine months from the date of the earliest official party meeting at which a candidate will be informally designated or endorsed for the position.
Joint Opinion 15-112/15-146 (released 10/29/15)
DIGEST: (1) To the extent legally permissible, a judicial candidate may hire responsible persons to pass petitions for his/her campaign and compensate them for the time expended, subject to the fair value rule. (2) A judicial candidate may not agree to pay his/her campaign manager a bonus contingent on the candidate’s electoral victory.
DIGEST of Joint Opinion 13-99/13-100 and 13-101/13-102:
- Subject to certain limitations as set forth herein, a judicial candidate may pay to attend a political fund-raiser for which no tickets are sold and no standard admission price has been set.
- A judicial candidate may purchase the lowest priced full-page campaign advertisement in a journal that will be distributed at a political party’s fund-raiser during the candidate’s window period, but may not pay a premium over that price for a more prominently displayed advertisement.
DIGEST of Opinion 12-129(A)-(G):
- A judicial candidate may not hire a professional fund-raising consultant who will be paid on a percentage or commission basis.
- A judicial candidate may hold a free “meet and greet” event at which modest and reasonable refreshments are served.
- A judicial candidate may attend and participate in a politically sponsored golf tournament during his/her window period, subject to limitations on price and number of tickets, and may also purchase campaign advertisements at such events, subject to the fair value rule.
- A judicial candidate may comment on an opponent’s conduct, subject to certain limitations.
- A judicial candidate who is defeated in the election may use a de minimis amount of unexpended campaign funds for an extremely modest social event to thank persons who significantly volunteered on the candidate’s campaign.
DIGEST of Joint Opinion 12-84/12-95(B)-(G):
- A judicial candidate must not be a speaker, guest of honor, or award recipient at a politically sponsored event, unless either (a) the event is not a fund-raiser, or (b) the candidate’s participation is unannounced prior to the event.
- To the extent legally permissible, a judicial candidate may use campaign funds to attend bar association functions or other events that are not hosted by political organizations throughout his/her window period, provided that his/her attendance is in furtherance of his/her campaign for judicial office and the candidate determines that he/she will receive fair value for the expenditure.
- A judicial candidate may list the name of a sitting judge as a reference for a political party’s screening panel but must not ask a sitting judge to write the panel directly on the candidate’s behalf.
- A judicial candidate may permit other individuals to attend his/her fund-raiser without charge, regardless of whether such individuals are currently seeking election to public office.
- A judicial candidate may include a link from his/her campaign website to a political organization’s website which contains information promoting the judicial candidate’s campaign.