Opinion 16-161
December 8, 2016
Digest: A full-time judge may serve on the admissions committee of a country club, assuming the club is non-profit, does not regularly engage in litigation, and does not invidiously discriminate, and provided that the judge’s service on the committee will not involve her/him in fund-raising, providing legal advice, or making decisions likely to lead to litigation.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(D); 100.4(A); 100.4(C)(3)(a); 100.4(C)(3)(a)(i)-(ii); 100.4(C)(3)(b)(i); 100.4(D)(3); 100.4(G); Opinions 11-51; 09-170; 99-183; 96-60; 95-69; 94-111; 88-119.
Opinion:
A full-time judge asks if he/she may serve on the admissions committee of a country club.1 The admissions committee does not review applicants’ financial information, provide legal advice, or solicit funds. According to the club’s general manager, the admissions committee’s activities have not resulted in litigation, and are unlikely to do so in the future. Moreover, any litigation involving the club or its admissions committee is unlikely to come before the judge’s specialized court.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]; 100.4[A]). A judge may not hold membership in an organization that practices invidious discrimination based on age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability or marital status (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[D]). A judge may not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][i]). A full-time judge may be a member of a non-profit educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][a]) and may also serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor if the organization is not likely to “be engaged regularly in adversary proceedings in any court” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][a][ii]) or to engage in “proceedings that ordinarily would come before the judge” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][a][i]). A full-time judge also must not practice law (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[G]).
The Committee has advised that a full-time judge may serve on the board of a non-profit country club (see Opinion 94-111); serve as the secretary of a non-profit golf club and be excused from the obligation of paying annual dues if all prior secretaries also were excused from paying dues (see Opinion 96-60); and serve on the board of a non-profit public radio station or golf club, as long as the judge does not participate in fund-raising (see Opinion 99-183). Similarly, a part-time judge may serve on the board of a non-profit organization that awards scholarships to aspiring seminarians, as long as the judge does not personally solicit funds (see Opinion 09-170).
Sometimes, however, service on an organization’s legal or admissions committee may involve impermissible conduct. For example, while a judge may serve on the board of a shareholders’ non-profit residential cooperative or a homeowners’ association, he/she may not serve on its legal or admissions subcommittee if the subcommittee’s decisions are likely to lead to litigation or to the judge’s providing legal advice (see Opinions 11-51; 95-69; 88-119).
Here, the information provided about the admissions committee’s work suggests that litigation is highly unlikely to ensue and the judge will not be called upon to provide legal advice. Accordingly, this judge may serve on the admissions committee of his/her country club, assuming the club is non-profit, does not regularly engage in litigation, and does not invidiously discriminate, and provided that the judge’s service on the committee will not involve her/him in fund-raising, providing legal advice, or making decisions likely to lead to litigation.
________________________
1 Although not specified in the inquiry, the Committee assumes the club is a not-for-profit organization rather than a business entity (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[D][3]), does not regularly engage in litigation (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][a][i]-[ii]), and does not invidiously discriminate (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[D]).