Opinion 25-168
December 18, 2025
Digest: A full-time judge may upload recordings of his/her own musical performances, both original compositions and covers of other artists’ works, to a streaming music service where they will be available for public purchase, provided that: (1) such activity is not a business enterprise; (2) the judge’s compensation is reasonable; and (3) the judge’s judicial status is not improperly used to promote the recordings.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(D)(3); 100.4(H)(1); 100.4(H)(1)(a); Opinions 20-59; 19-09; 17-11; 15-17; 09-192/09-231; 06-141; 05-149.
Opinion:
A full-time judge who is a musician and composer asks if it is ethically permissible to upload recordings of him/her performing both original compositions and covers of other artists’ songs to a streaming music service, such as Spotify or Pandora, where they would be available for public purchase. The judge notes that publishing his/her recordings on commercial streaming platforms will make them more easily accessible and readily shared with friends and family. The judge expects to receive a standard “streaming fee” of a few thousandths of a cent per stream of an uploaded recording; for the cover songs, this set amount will automatically be split with the copyright holder. The judge performs the covers under a pseudonym, but would be credited as composer on his/her original pieces.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]). A judge may not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance any private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]). A judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s impartiality, detract from the dignity of judicial office, or interfere with proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). A full-time judge must not serve as an “active participant of any business entity” (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][3]), but may “receive compensation” for permissible extra-judicial activities (22 NYCRR 100.4[H][1]). The payment source must “not give the appearance of influencing the judge’s performance of judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety” (id.) and the compensation must neither “exceed a reasonable amount” nor “exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity” (22 NYCRR 100.4[H][1][a]).
We have said a full-time judge “may engage in extra-judicial activities … involving the expression of creative talents” and accept reasonable compensation for them, subject to certain limitations (Opinion 09-192/09-231). Thus, a full-time judge may join a musician’s union, perform as a musician, and accept compensation for such performances, provided the judge’s band is not a business entity and his/her participation is not publicized (see Opinion 06-141).[1] Moreover, just as a full-time judge “may write a book and profit from its publication, notwithstanding the involvement of a commercial publisher” (Opinion 20-59), we have also said a judge may publish his/her own musical compositions and receive royalties and performance rights fees for them (see Opinion 17-11) and may develop and produce a musical album of original copyrighted songs written and performed by the judge (see Opinion 05-149).
We note that the judge’s choice to use a pseudonym in performing covers of other artists’ works is not determinative here. Indeed, we have advised that otherwise prohibited conduct is not rendered permissible by concealing the judge’s identity (see e.g. Opinion 19-09 [“The analysis does not change if the judge performs anonymously and/or uses a pseudonym”]). Conversely, a judge engaging in permissible extra-judicial activities involving the expression of creative talents “need not conceal his/her biographical information, including his/her identity as a judge, but promotion of [the judge’s] works must not exploit the judge’s judicial position” (Opinion 17-11 [citations omitted]).
Applying these principles, we conclude the inquiring judge may upload recordings of his/her own musical performances, both original compositions and covers of other artists’ works, to a streaming music service where they will be available for public purchase, provided that: (1) such activity is not a business enterprise; (2) the judge’s compensation is reasonable; and (3) the judge’s judicial status is not improperly used to promote the recordings.
[1] We have concluded that musical groups are not business entities when they are “primarily rehearsal groups that play for their own personal enjoyment and seldom perform for a fee” (Opinion 06-141) or when they perform “eight to ten [times] yearly” and are paid “occasionally” (Opinion 15-17).