Opinion 25-170

December 18, 2025

Digest: A judge may not use campaign funds to purchase fleece jackets for chambers staff, even if intended to dispose of de minimis unexpended campaign funds at the conclusion of the judge’s window period.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.5(A)(5); Opinions 25-54; 22-102; 18-96; 16-29/16-50; 12-95(A); 98-06.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge asks if it is ethically permissible to use de minimis unexpended campaign funds at the conclusion of his/her window period to purchase fleece jackets for chambers staff featuring the court seal and a simple identification of where they work (such as “Office of the ______ Judge”).

          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 or non-judge candidate for election to judicial office must not “use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the candidate or others” (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][5]). 

          We recently advised that unexpended de minimis campaign funds may be used at the conclusion of the applicable window period for “any lawful non-political purpose connected with judicial office,” without attempting to discern whether particular purposes are “within the contemplation of campaign donors” (Opinion 25-54).  For example, a judge may dispose of such remaining de minimis funds by purchasing artwork for display in the courtroom and chambers, as such artwork benefits the public and would remain property of the Unified Court System (see id.).  A judge may also use such funds to purchase judicial robes, which are traditionally worn on the bench as a public signifier of judicial office (see Opinion 16-29/16-50). 

          Still, Opinion 25-54 must be read together with the rule that campaign contributions may not be used for any “private benefit” (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][5]).  For example, a judicial candidate must not use campaign contributions to purchase new clothes for his/her election campaign (see Opinion 18-96).  Even when de minimis funds remain at the conclusion of the window period, they cannot be used to purchase “gifts of nominal value (under $25)” for “several persons who assisted in the campaign” (Opinion 98-06).  Instead, we concluded the rules “prohibit the making of even token gifts to campaign workers” (id.).  Nor may such funds be donated to charitable organizations, other than those we have expressly designated in a published opinion (see Opinions 25-54; 22-102; 16-29/16-50). 

          Here, the proposed purchase of fleece jackets for chambers staff solely benefits the judge and his/her staff without providing any discernible benefit to the public or the judicial system.  In our view, it would be impossible to avoid the public perception that the judge was using campaign funds to provide a private gift of court-themed clothing to favored court employees (cf. Opinions 18-96; 98-06).  We therefore conclude the judge may not use campaign funds to purchase fleece jackets for chambers staff, even if intended to dispose of de minimis unexpended campaign funds at the conclusion of the judge’s window period.