Opinion 25-169

December 18, 2025

Digest:  On these facts, a judge may post a promotional video on social media concerning an educational/mentorship program for high school students.

Rules:   NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.3(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(B); Opinions 25-72; 23-129; 19-100; 18-61; 12-49; 09-151.

Opinion:

          A full-time judge has co-created a not-for-profit educational/mentorship program intended to interest high school students in pursuing legal careers.  The program, presented during several weeks in the summer, brings in volunteer lawyers and judges to teach the students basic legal concepts and lawyering skills, including a mock trial, appellate argument, and a negotiation exercise.  There is no fee charged for participation in the program which takes place in borrowed space.  The cost of materials and other expenses of the program are paid for by the inquiring judge.  A friend of the judge has created a 4-minute promotional video about the program, which features both the inquiring judge as well as some of the students and volunteer faculty as well as other community leaders and elected officials who have helped facilitate the program.  The video has no fund-raising component.  The judge asks if the video may be posted on social media to attract students and possibly find a more permanent home for the program.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  A judge may speak, write, and otherwise participate in extra-judicial activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[B]).  A judge’s judicial duties “take precedence over all the judge’s other activities” (22 NYCRR 100.3[A]).  Accordingly, any extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office, and must not (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) detract from the dignity of judicial office; or (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).  A judge must not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).

          We have previously advised that a judge may participate in a job fair (see Opinions 09-151; 25-72), speak about his/her judicial experience at a legislator’s nonpartisan youth cabinet meeting (see Opinion 19-100) and preside over a mock video arraignment for educational purposes (see Opinion 12-49).  We have also said a judge who attended a private school with the assistance of a not-for-profit program that prepares disadvantaged students to attend such schools may participate in a video recorded interview for use in promotion of the program and/or recruitment of students, but not for fund-raising (see Opinion 18-61).  Notably, we have often cautioned judges concerning the use of social media and concluded in one instance that videos described by a judge as informational and educational were “nonetheless cloaked in the trappings of judicial office and will readily be perceived as a campaign of self-promotion” (Opinion 23-129).

          Here the educational program created by the judge is designed to encourage high school students to pursue legal careers, is free of charge, and is presented by the inquiring judge as well as volunteer judges, lawyers, and elected officials.  The promotional video, which is primarily intended to recruit high school students, fairly describes the program, and thus, we conclude that that the inquiring judge may post the video on social media.